Monica A. MacKenzie

S.B. pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, involving over 40,000 images and 600 videos.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less one day incarceration.

The court considered the severity of the offence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives for child sexual abuse offences.

However, the court also gave significant weight to a Gladue report detailing the offender's background, including intergenerational trauma from his father's abuse in a provincially run school and the offender's own childhood abuse and neglect.

The judge found "exceptional circumstances" due to the offender's reduced moral blameworthiness and demonstrated rehabilitative efforts, including Indigenous-centered counselling and adult education.

Consequently, the court imposed a two-year less one-day conditional sentence, emphasizing the importance of supporting rehabilitation and avoiding the risk of undermining progress through incarceration.

Two young persons, H.C. and I.S., were jointly charged with manslaughter by criminal negligence in the death of K.P., who was shot with a sawed-off shotgun on July 13, 2018, in Oakville.

H.C. was the owner of the prohibited firearm.

I.S. was charged with various firearm-related offences.

The Crown's theory was that I.S. pointed the gun and pulled the trigger without knowing it was loaded, and that H.C. had loaded it earlier without informing others.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the principal Crown witness, C.A., who was present at the scene.

The court found that while H.C. was guilty of manslaughter by criminal negligence based on his failure to safely store the firearm and ammunition, I.S. could not be convicted of the manslaughter charges due to reasonable doubt regarding who actually fired the weapon.

I.S. was convicted of unauthorized possession of a firearm and careless use of a firearm, and pled guilty to obstructing justice.

The accused, Yunlong Li, sought to reopen his trial after being convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The application was brought to introduce new evidence, including his own testimony and a new toxicology report, to support a bolus drinking defence.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, which requires considering due diligence, relevance, credibility, and potential impact on the trial result, along with whether the application attempts to reverse a tactical decision.

The court found that the proposed evidence, particularly the new toxicology report, was based on an inaccurate assumption and would not have altered the conviction.

The application was dismissed, emphasizing that reopening a trial after conviction is reserved for rare and exceptional circumstances.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 committed between May 2, 2012 and March 1, 2016.

As Power of Attorney for her mother's personal care and property, the accused depleted her mother's bank accounts and investments by approximately $161,000, spending the money on gambling, living expenses, and overseas travel.

The court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation with conditions prohibiting the accused from holding positions of trust and requiring counselling.

A stand-alone restitution order of $161,000 was made in favour of the estate.

This voir dire decision addresses the admissibility of statements and breath test results in a criminal trial for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The accused, Yunlong Li, challenged the voluntariness of his statements and alleged violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and 10 (right to counsel).

The court found that Li's statements were voluntary and that police had reasonable grounds for the breath demand, thus no s. 8 violation occurred.

Furthermore, the court determined there was no s. 10 Charter violation, as Li understood his right to counsel and exercised it, including speaking with a Mandarin-speaking duty counsel.

The court concluded that no special circumstances required an interpreter beyond what was provided, and any delays were reasonable.

Consequently, all challenged evidence was admitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to indecent assault on a female victim occurring between 1969 and 1976 when the victim was between 7 and 9 years old, and sexual assault on his biological daughter occurring between 1983 and 1988 when she was between 3 and 9 years old.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment followed by probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of up to two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a blended sentence of six months imprisonment combined with a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years probation, with ancillary orders including DNA order, SOIRA registration for life, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The court found that while denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the abuse of trust and young age of victims, the offender's low risk of reoffending, 28-year absence of further offences, and age and health considerations warranted a sentence less severe than might otherwise be imposed.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling house in Burlington with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification by the homeowner's son, who observed the intruder inside his bedroom and later identified the accused's vehicle.

The defence argued the identification was unreliable, particularly given the witness's observation of an accent that the accused did not possess.

The court found the witness credible and concluded the accused was the intruder, determining that the accused had likely modulated his voice to disguise it.

The presence of power tools in the accused's vehicle corroborated the theft of tools from the property.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The complainant, a 17-year-old, was heavily intoxicated at a party when the accused returned to her residence and engaged in sexual activity with her while she was incapacitated.

The court rejected the accused's defence that the complainant consented, finding that she was too intoxicated to consent and that the accused was aware of her incapacity.

The court also found that the accused unlawfully entered the dwelling with intent to commit the sexual assault.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with alcohol in her body contrary to section 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically challenging the timing of the approved screening device demand and the delay in providing the right to counsel.

The court found no breach of Charter rights, holding that the officer's investigative steps were reasonable and compliant with the immediacy requirements of section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded on the merits following dismissal of the Charter application.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon following an incident on March 6, 2011.

The accused pled guilty to two counts of breach of probation and not guilty to the remaining four counts.

After a trial spanning multiple dates, the court found the accused guilty of uttering threats to cause death to the complainant and a third party, assault, and sexual assault (as a lesser included offence, not sexual assault with a weapon).

The decision reflects a pattern of domestic violence within a long-term relationship marked by substance abuse and repeated breaches of court orders.