M. Mackenzie

The offender pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death under section 220(b) of the Criminal Code.

She left her very young son, who had significant developmental delays and autism spectrum disorder, unattended in a bathtub with approximately 8 inches of water for 2-3 minutes while retrieving laundry.

Upon her return, the child was face down in the water and unresponsive, and was pronounced deceased at the hospital.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment followed by 12 months of probation, rejecting the defence request for a conditional sentence order.

The court found that while mitigating factors existed, the aggravating factors—including the vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust, and the series of negligent acts following the initial abandonment—warranted a custodial sentence.

The appellant, Dimitrios A. Maniatis, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, alleging two reversible errors by the trial judge: failure to resolve a material inconsistency between the complainant's and an independent witness's evidence, and material misapprehension of the independent witness's testimony regarding his ability to observe the incident.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately addressed the inconsistencies by attributing them to the complainant being asleep and the witness's initial misperception, and that it was open to the trial judge to accept the independent witness's evidence regarding his observations.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The offences occurred on July 18, 2012 at his workplace and September 11, 2012 at his residence.

A forensic psychiatric assessment revealed the accused had pedohebephilia and was assessed as low risk for hands-on sexual offending but low-moderate risk for further child pornography offending.

The court imposed an 18-month concurrent jail sentence, three years probation with strict conditions including prohibition on contact with minors, a lifetime s. 161 prohibition order, lifetime weapons prohibition, lifetime SOIRA registration, and a primary DNA order.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and general deterrence in sentencing for child pornography offences.

The accused was charged with three sexual offence counts involving a minor: sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, and two counts of sexual touching of a person under 16 years of age contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The allegations occurred between August 1, 2010, and January 31, 2011, in Burlington, Ontario.

The complainant testified that the accused, who was her mother's boyfriend, engaged in repeated sexual contact with her over a period of months.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be vague, inconsistent, and unreliable, and determined that the accused's testimony, while also lacking credibility in certain respects, did not need to be fully assessed given the reasonable doubt arising from the complainant's evidence.

The court acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5).

The Crown's case was that the accused was found sleeping in his vehicle against a guardrail on Highway 403.

The defence argued that the accused had been involuntarily placed in the passenger seat by a friend who was driving, and that the friend caused the collision and fled the scene.

The court acquitted on the refusal charge, finding the accused was unable to provide a proper breath sample due to his level of intoxication.

The court convicted on the care or control charge, finding that the accused's position in the vehicle and access to keys established a realistic risk he would drive while impaired.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to sexual assault and breach of probation.

The offender restrained the complainant with handcuffs, filmed part of the assault, and forced sexual intercourse while already bound by a probation order for a prior sexual assault conviction.

The court considered aggravating factors including the videotaping of the offence, the physical restraint of the complainant, the prior sexual assault conviction, and the breach of probation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court held that these circumstances warranted a sentence above the typical range.

A penitentiary sentence of 54 months for sexual assault and 6 months concurrent for breach of probation was imposed, along with ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA registration, forfeiture of offence-related property, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused was convicted of assault and sexual assault against his employee at a retail franchise workplace.

The assault occurred between April and June 2010, involving the accused grabbing and dragging the victim toward a stockroom.

The sexual assault occurred on August 26, 2010, when the accused locked the victim in a stockroom and attempted to put his hands down her pants.

The accused maintained a delusional fantasy of a consensual affair throughout trial and sentencing.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 30 days for assault and 90 days consecutive for sexual assault, followed by two years probation with strict conditions including no contact, a 500-metre exclusion zone, and mandatory counselling for sexual offenders.