Miriam Villamil-Pallister

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate custodial sentence for Baskaran Balasooriyan, convicted of possession of stolen property over $5000, attempted abduction of a 12-year-old child, mischief, criminal harassment, and breach of release order.

The court considered the applicability of the Kienapple principle to stay counts, the availability of a s. 161 order to protect children, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order.

The judge rejected the defence's proposed conditional sentence and stay of mischief, emphasizing the high moral culpability, risk to the community, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The sentence imposed included 420 days custody for attempted abduction (fully credited for presentence custody), 60 days for possession, and a suspended sentence for breach, followed by probation, DNA, s. 161, and s. 109 orders.

The accused was convicted of possession of stolen property over $5000, attempted abduction of a person under 14, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The court applied the doctrine of recent possession to find knowledge of the stolen vehicle.

For the attempted abduction, the court found the accused's repeated attempts to lure the child into his car constituted enticement with intent to deprive parents of possession.

The mischief charge was upheld as the accused's conduct interfered with the victim's enjoyment of the public park.

Criminal harassment was proven as the accused's repeated communication caused the victim to reasonably fear for her safety, and the accused was reckless as to whether his conduct would cause harassment.

The accused, Travis Jolliffe, pleaded guilty to assaulting his one-month-old baby, causing rib fractures.

The baby later died from accidental suffocation, unrelated to the assault, but the accused's failure to seek medical attention for the initial injuries was an aggravating factor.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less one day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust and lack of medical care, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, completion of a parenting program, and status as a first-time, young, and immature offender.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, the court found the accused fell into the category of an immature parent acting out of frustration, lessening his moral culpability.

A conditional sentence was deemed appropriate to achieve sentencing objectives.

The Crown applied to revoke A.H.'s bail post-conviction for criminal harassment and attempted abduction, pending sentencing and a potential dangerous/long-term offender application.

The Crown argued for revocation on secondary (public safety) and tertiary (public confidence) grounds, citing an outdated threat assessment and the gravity of the offences.

The defence contended the threat assessment was stale and that revoking bail would impede A.H.'s ability to prepare for upcoming legal proceedings.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding no new facts to justify revocation, noting A.H.'s consistent compliance with strict bail conditions for over two years, and reiterating that post-conviction bail revocation is an exception, not the rule.

The accused, Justice Snache, was charged with second-degree murder.

The trial proceeded in two stages: first, to determine guilt based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, and second, to determine criminal responsibility due to mental disorder.

The court found that the Crown proved the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including the actus reus and mens rea, based on the agreed facts and the accused's admission.

However, the court then considered the Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) defence under Section 16 of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, particularly from Dr. Naidoo, the court found that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the moral and legal wrongfulness of his actions.

Consequently, the accused was found not criminally responsible for the murder and remanded to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

The Crown applied to admit similar fact evidence against the accused, Anthony Holtorf, in a criminal trial for criminal harassment and child luring.

The evidence consisted of a 2008 peace bond and a 2015 guilty plea, both related to similar incidents of approaching young, unsupervised girls.

The Crown argued the evidence was probative of mens rea and to rebut anticipated innocent explanation defences.

The defence argued the evidence was remote, dissimilar, and highly prejudicial.

The court, applying the R. v. Handy framework, found significant similarities in the pattern of behaviour, despite temporal gaps and minor dissimilarities.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence, in establishing a pattern of behaviour and intent, outweighed its prejudicial effect, especially in a judge-alone trial.

The Crown's application to admit the similar fact evidence was granted.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought several pre-trial applications seeking to exclude his confession to police, set aside search warrants, and exclude GPS cell phone data.

The court found that while the police breached the accused's s. 8 Charter rights by conducting a non-compliant strip search, the breach did not warrant a stay of proceedings or the exclusion of his voluntary confession under s. 24(2).

The court also dismissed the Garofoli application, finding no material omissions in the search warrant informations.

Finally, the court ruled that GPS location data from the accused's phone was admissible without expert testimony, taking judicial notice of the reliability of GPS technology.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment and child luring after allegedly approaching young girls in a park.

Police placed him under investigative detention, searched him, and later arrested him, conducting a strip search and a search of his vehicle incident to arrest.

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 breaches, concluding the searches were lawful and justified by safety concerns.

While the court found a s. 10(b) breach due to a delay in fully advising the accused of his right to counsel, it declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), emphasizing society's interest in adjudicating serious offences involving children on their merits.

The youth accused was charged with second-degree murder following a fatal stabbing during a drug transaction.

The deceased and others had planned to rob the accused.

When the deceased approached the accused wearing a mask and drawing a large knife, the accused reacted by drawing his own knife and stabbing the deceased multiple times.

The court excluded the accused's subsequent statement to police, finding it lacked spontaneity.

However, applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the accused's testimony that he believed he was about to be stabbed and acted to protect himself.

The Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code for allegedly touching the complainant's breasts without consent in a hospital room.

The complainant testified that she was given alcohol that caused her to become disoriented, and she did not consent to the sexual contact.

The accused testified that the sexual contact was consensual.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding the effects of the alcohol consumed, the presence of a nurse who allegedly intervened, and inconsistencies with objective evidence from nursing and security staff.

The court found that the accused's evidence, while not fully accepted, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.