3 total
Seven-year sentence imposed for repeated child sexual abuse by a trusted caregiver.
The court sentenced the offender after jury convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his stepdaughter over a lengthy period beginning when she was a child.
Applying the post-Friesen sentencing approach for sexual violence against children, the court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, the offender's breach of trust, the victim's young age, the escalating and intrusive nature of the abuse, the prolonged duration of the offences, and the serious ongoing harm to the victim.
The defence authorities were found distinguishable because they involved fewer incidents, less serious conduct, or meaningful remorse.
A global sentence of seven years' imprisonment was imposed, one count was stayed under Kienapple, and ancillary prohibition, DNA, and lifetime registration orders were made.
Judicial review dismissed; hospital linen contract was negotiated and not supplied in confidence under FIPPA.
The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision ordering a hospital to disclose a linen services contract and a memorandum summarizing its terms.
The applicant argued the records contained financial information supplied in confidence during a bid process, exempting them from disclosure under s. 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator reasonably concluded that the contract was the product of negotiations and the information was mutually generated, not supplied in confidence.
Post-offence travel records ruled admissible as circumstantial evidence in fentanyl smuggling trial.
The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's post-offence travel to Bermuda as circumstantial evidence in a trial for exporting fentanyl.
The accused objected, arguing the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and invited moral prejudice based on religion and economic status.
The court found the travel records relevant as part of a matrix of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the offence.
The court dismissed the accused's arguments regarding prejudice, concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any minimal prejudicial effect, and ruled the evidence admissible.
