Nathan Kruger

The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted abduction of a person under the age of 16 under section 280(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The defendant engaged in an extended online grooming campaign with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl over approximately two months, exchanging sexually explicit messages, requesting and exchanging images, and making concrete plans to meet the persona for sexual purposes.

The court imposed a 13-month custodial sentence, finding that denunciation and deterrence were the dominant sentencing principles, and that a conditional sentence would be disproportionate despite the defendant's low assessed risk of reoffending.

Roberto Gilaard pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and uttering threats against a 12-year-old victim, S.S., through Instagram messages.

The messages included offers of a firearm, demands for her address, and threats of bodily harm, though Gilaard did not possess a real firearm.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of 8-12 months followed by 24 months probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the victim's vulnerability and the sexual component.

The defence sought a conditional discharge with two years probation, highlighting Gilaard's youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, and the potential impact of a conviction on his future.

The court granted a conditional discharge with two years probation, finding it in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, while imposing strict conditions including no contact with the victim, no social media without approval, and a weapons prohibition.

The accused, Reece Korchinski and Darienne Colley-Welch, were jointly tried on multiple criminal charges, including possession of a firearm, pointing a firearm, unlawful confinement, robbery, and assault, arising from an alleged gun-point robbery.

Mr. Korchinski also faced charges for breach of court orders.

The Crown presented evidence from two witnesses, Matthew Thomas and Danielle Patai, whose credibility and reliability were significantly challenged due to dishonesty, inconsistencies, and animus towards the accused.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found the witnesses untrustworthy and their evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of both accused on all counts.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a motor vehicle collision.

The defendant advanced a Charter s. 10(b) challenge, arguing she was detained without being advised of her rights to counsel.

The court found the defendant was psychologically detained when police left her in an ambulance stating "I'll be back," thereby breaching her s. 10(b) rights.

The breath test evidence was excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving based on circumstantial evidence including her alcohol consumption at the bar, the nature of the collision, and expert evidence regarding impairment.

The defendant was acquitted of the over 80 mg charge due to the exclusion of breath samples.

The accused was found guilty of threatening death following a trial on November 3, 2017.

The incident occurred at Queen's Park when the accused left two duffle bags unattended in front of the Whitney Block west doors and made statements to security officers indicating a threat to the Legislature building.

The Crown sought to have the threat classified as an act of terrorism under section 83.01 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the terrorism designation, finding that the accused's mental health issues, rather than any ideological, political, or religious purpose, motivated the conduct.

The court sentenced the accused to six months time served and two years probation with various conditions, including mental health treatment and restrictions on attending Ontario Legislative buildings.

Two accused pleaded guilty to theft over and mischief under relating to a jewelry store theft of $64,000 worth of jewelry in Toronto on December 12, 2016.

The Crown and defence counsel jointly submitted for a "time served" disposition with 12 months probation.

The court rejected the joint submission as contrary to the public interest, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Pre-sentence reports revealed significant criminal histories and substance abuse issues not disclosed at the time of the guilty pleas.

The court imposed 8 months in reformatory for Flores and 90 days in jail for Criado, applying the public interest test from R. v. Anthony-Cook.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident on July 18, 2015.

The complainant attended a bar, consumed significant alcohol, and has no memory of events after approximately 2:00 a.m.

Surveillance video evidence established that the complainant became progressively more intoxicated throughout the night.

The Crown argued that the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication.

The defence argued that the complainant's assumption about her lack of consent was unreliable and that the evidence did not establish incapacity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial judge found that while the complainant was severely intoxicated, the evidence established she lacked the cognitive capacity to consent to sexual activity.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.