M. LeBlanc

The accused pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for his role in the prolonged assault and torture of a vulnerable victim in the context of the drug trade.

The Crown sought an 18-year period of parole ineligibility, while the accused sought 12 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the victim's vulnerability and the brutal nature of the murder.

The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 16 years.

Following a brief trial, the defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and not guilty of assault.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that a suspended sentence with two years of probation was appropriate.

The court accepted the joint submission, crediting 102 days of pre-trial custody at a 1.5:1 ratio (153 days equivalent).

The sentence included probation conditions, a weapons prohibition, DNA sampling requirements, and mandatory registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 10 years.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and assault upon his aunt.

The defendant pleaded guilty to simple assault on count two.

The court conducted a trial on the sexual assault charge.

The Crown called two witnesses and the defendant testified.

The court found the defendant guilty of sexual assault and not guilty of the assault charge, as the assault was committed in circumstances of a sexual nature and formed part of a continuing transaction that began in the boiler room with the defendant's exposure of his genitals and sexually suggestive language.

The defendant sought to introduce evidence of non-consensual prior sexual activity with the complainant, his aunt, to explain the nature of their relationship, his behaviour during the alleged incident, and his mental state at the time of the alleged sexual assault.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the other sexual activity (OSA) evidence met the requirements of section 276 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant claimed the complainant had sexually assaulted him over a two to three-year period when he was a youth.

The court granted the application, finding the evidence sufficiently particularized, relevant to issues at trial, and having significant probative value that was not substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect.