Michelle Soucy

Sentencing of an accused found guilty by jury of aggravated assault and uttering threats to cause bodily harm, who also pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon.

The accused stabbed the victim with a spring-operated knife during a consensual fist fight after threatening him on Facebook.

The court accepted a joint submission for a conditional sentence of two years less a day with a house arrest component for the first twelve months, followed by a curfew.

Significant mitigating factors included the accused's extensive rehabilitative efforts addressing severe alcohol addiction, employment stability, family support, and compliance with release conditions.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, ten-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the knife.

The accused was charged with six counts of sexual abuse against a child complainant: two counts of invitation to sexual touching, two counts of sexual interference, and two counts of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that the accused, who was in a relationship with the complainant's mother and living in the home, sexually abused the child on multiple occasions in the bathroom and principal bedroom when the mother was at work.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and reliable on the core elements of the abuse, rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, and found that DNA evidence (semen on the complainant's underwear) corroborated the complainant's account.

The accused was found guilty on all six counts.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of trial was 36 months and 11 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found significant defence delay attributable to the accused's failure to retain counsel and provide necessary financial documentation to Legal Aid.

After deducting the defence delay, the net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, Curtis Morrison, was charged with obstructing police, possession of cocaine, and various firearm offences after a search incident to arrest.

Morrison alleged racial profiling, arbitrary detention (s. 9 Charter), and unreasonable search (s. 8 Charter), seeking exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found insufficient evidence of racial profiling.

However, it found that the initial arrest based on an unverified "tax warrant" from Quebec was unlawful, breaching s. 9.

Consequently, the subsequent search of his vehicle, which was not incident to a lawful arrest and lacked other legal authority, breached s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the accused's Charter rights outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits, leading to the exclusion of the gun and cocaine evidence.

In the alternative, the court also found that the Crown had not proven possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the information being sworn to the anticipated end of trial was 23 months and 8 days.

The court deducted 4 months and 24 days for defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 18.5 months, which exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown argued COVID-19 constituted exceptional circumstances but failed to provide evidence of its specific impact on this case or steps taken to mitigate delay.

The court found the delay unreasonable and granted the stay of proceedings.