Michelle McKay

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with his three-year-old daughter, possession of child pornography, and making child pornography.

The Crown sought 15 years imprisonment; the defence sought 10 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment (7 years for sexual interference, 2 years consecutive for possession, and 3 years consecutive for making child pornography), with credit for 677 days of pre-trial custody.

The court found the breach of trust profound, the victim extremely young, and the collection of 19,130 child pornography images highly aggravating.

The court recognized the accused's genuine remorse and guilty plea as significant mitigating factors but found insufficient insight into his offending behaviour.

Ancillary orders were imposed including SOIRA registration, DNA order, forfeiture of devices, and a section 161 order for 20 years.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter in connection with the shooting death of a 17-year-old victim during a drug-related dispute, and to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years' imprisonment less credit for 750 days of presentence custody, broken down as 8.5 years for manslaughter and 1.5 years consecutive for the drug trafficking offense.

The court considered sentencing ranges, aggravating factors including the use of a firearm and the insidious nature of fentanyl, and mitigating factors including the offender's guilty pleas, lack of prior criminal history, and harsh conditions in presentence custody.

The court considered whether police infringed the accused’s rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter by delaying the right to counsel and failing to promptly inform him of increased jeopardy after a search revealed drugs and a gun.

The court found breaches of both rights but concluded, after a Grant analysis, that the evidence should not be excluded.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused was tried on a charge of assault after admitting that he punched the complainant once in the face during a chaotic late-night altercation outside her home.

The central issue was whether the punch was justified under s. 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found significant credibility and reliability problems in the complainant's and some civilian eyewitnesses' accounts, accepted much of the defence evidence, and was left with reasonable doubt about the extent of the assault beyond the single punch.

Applying the modern self-defence framework, the court held there was an air of reality to the defence and that the Crown failed to disprove the accused's reasonable belief in a threat of force, his defensive purpose, and the reasonableness of his response.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.

The Crown entered an acquittal for uttering threats.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant and the accused, finding the complainant generally credible and her account supported by physical evidence, while the accused's testimony was unreliable and intentionally dishonest on material issues.

The court found the accused guilty of voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved to amend its statement of claim prior to the defendants' scheduled motion for summary judgment.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that a prior procedural agreement reached at mediation barred the amendments, that the amendments raised new causes of action past the limitation period, and that they constituted an abuse of process and caused non-compensable prejudice.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, finding that the mediation agreement did not waive the mandatory application of Rule 26.01, the amendments merely particularized existing claims rather than raising new causes of action, and there was no evidence of bad faith or non-compensable prejudice.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was granted.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent restaurant employer.

During the union's organizing campaign, the employer's managers held one-on-one meetings with employees, questioning them about the union, and distributed gratuitous bonus cheques to compensate for lost tips due to ongoing renovations.

An employee subsequently circulated a petition opposing the union.

The Board found that the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes, as the employer's actions created an environment where employees would reasonably perceive management opposition and surveillance.

The Board also held that the employer's interrogations and the timed payment of bonuses during individual meetings constituted undue influence and interference in violation of sections 64 and 66(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board certified the union and ordered the employer to post a notice of its violations.