Nenad Trbojevic

The offender pleaded guilty to four offences: exercising control over a person for sexual services, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, advertising sexual services, and sexual assault.

The offender exploited a vulnerable 22-year-old woman by forcing her into sex work, taking a percentage of her earnings, and sexually assaulting her.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years, reduced to one year net after crediting 1,074 days of pre-sentence custody at a 1.5:1 ratio and applying a one-year reduction for egregious remand conditions.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including DNA collection, lifetime weapons prohibition, non-communication order, 20-year SOIRA registration, and forfeiture order.

The accused, Jeff McIntosh, was sentenced for child luring and related offences under sections 172.1(1)(a) and 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation as paramount sentencing principles for child luring offences, particularly those involving online exploitation.

Despite the absence of an actual child victim (police sting operation), the court found the offender's moral blameworthiness to be high due to his belief that the victim was 15 years old and his intentional actions to facilitate sexual activity.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding that the need for denunciation and deterrence necessitated a period of incarceration.

A sentence of 12 months imprisonment was imposed for child luring, concurrent with a 6-month sentence for the related offence and a one-day concurrent sentence for obstructing a peace officer, along with a 2-year probation order and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The accused, Jeff McIntosh, was found guilty of communicating with a person believed to be under 18 for sexual purposes (luring), obtaining sexual services of a person under 18, and obstructing a peace officer by providing a false name.

The court rejected the accused's defence that an individual named "Sean Williams" was responsible for the communications, finding his testimony unbelievable and fabricated.

The judge concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who sent the incriminating text messages and believed the recipient was 15 years old.

The accused was tried for the second-degree murder of his mother.

The court previously found that the accused committed the act that caused her death.

The Crown sought to prove that the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

Based on uncontested expert psychiatric evidence, the court found that the accused suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and was experiencing Capgras delusions and command hallucinations at the time of the offence.

The court concluded that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong, and found him not criminally responsible.

The accused was charged with the second-degree murder of his mother.

The Crown and defence agreed to proceed by way of admissions for much of the evidence.

The court first had to determine whether the accused committed the actus reus of the offence before considering a potential defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

Based on overwhelming forensic, DNA, and circumstantial evidence, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of the victim by inflicting multiple sharp force injuries.

The defendant, Michel Varalo, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual invitation involving an underage complainant.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of the complainant and her father, as the defendant did not testify.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, considering inconsistencies in her testimony and that of her father, as well as the context of her age and delayed disclosure.

The court found the complainant's testimony reliable and credible regarding the fundamental elements of the charges, leading to convictions on all three counts.

A conditional stay was entered on the sexual assault charge due to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

A nuclear power plant security officer arrested the accused for impaired driving based on observations of confused speech and admission of alcohol consumption, though without detecting an odour of alcohol at the time.

Responding police officers, upon arrival, determined there were insufficient grounds to continue the arrest for impaired driving but formed reasonable suspicion to conduct a roadside screening test.

The accused remained handcuffed throughout the entire investigative detention and roadside testing process for approximately 36 minutes, despite being cooperative and coherent.

The court found multiple Charter violations: the initial arrest lacked objective reasonable grounds, the continued handcuffing during the investigative detention was arbitrary, and the manner of obtaining the roadside breath samples was unreasonable.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded all breath sample evidence and acquitted the accused.

Ganesh Persaud pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of his estranged wife, Bodwatie Persaud, who he brutally murdered due to jealous suspicions.

Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 12 years.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding the increased parole ineligibility period warranted given the brutal nature of the domestic murder, breach of trust, and aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's age, health, lack of criminal record, and early guilty plea.

A 19-year-old youth was charged with robbery and possession of property obtained by crime arising from a street robbery on March 18, 2017.

The complainant was robbed of his cellphone and other items by four males.

Approximately two hours after the robbery, police found the defendant in possession of the complainant's stolen cellphone.

The defendant testified that he purchased the phone from a stranger named Jabari at a house party.

The court applied the doctrine of recent possession and found the defendant guilty on both counts, rejecting his explanation as implausible and finding no reasonable alternative inferences consistent with innocence.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown presented evidence of breath test readings of 160 mgs alcohol per 100 ml blood and 150 mgs alcohol per 100 ml blood.

The defence raised two issues: first, whether the Daylight Savings Time adjustment on the morning of the events affected the admissibility of the certificate as evidence, and second, whether the defendant's Charter section 8 right against unreasonable search and seizure was breached.

The court found that the DST adjustment was properly accounted for and that the officer had reasonable grounds to demand an approved screening device sample.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application challenging delay in the criminal proceedings.

The charges were laid on October 30, 2016, with trial dates set for January 29-31, 2018.

The trial did not complete on the third day, and the continuation date was set for May 7, 2018, which was eight days beyond the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the delay attributable to defence counsel's unavailability constituted defence delay under the Jordan framework, and that the additional time required for trial testimony constituted an exceptional circumstance due to good faith underestimation of trial time by experienced counsel and the trial judge.

The accused was charged with five counts of assault arising from incidents occurring between June and October 2016 during a romantic relationship.

The accused claimed the physical contact was consensual and part of a mutually agreed therapeutic program involving "slap-bets," pinning, and verbal challenges.

The Crown argued the complainant's apparent consent was vitiated by the accused's coercion, manipulation, and duress.

The court found the accused guilty on all five counts, determining that the complainant's will was completely overcome through the accused's controlling behaviour, verbal abuse, and escalating physical violence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unreliable due to his mental health condition and medication non-compliance, and found corroboration in text messages and audio recordings where the accused admitted to assaultive behaviour.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment contrary to section 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, as well as multiple counts of failing to comply with probation conditions (no contact provision, remaining 100 metres away from the complainant's residence/work, and keeping the peace).

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court found that the criminal harassment charge was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as the conduct did not amount to harassment in the legal sense and was not sufficiently threatening to instill fear.

However, the court found the accused guilty of breaching probation conditions by initiating direct contact with the complainant and by driving slowly past the complainant's residence while knowing its location.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching of a 13-year-old complainant during the summer of 2011 when the accused was 18 years old.

The accused argued the sexual activity was consensual, that he believed the complainant to be 16 years of age, and that he took all reasonable steps to determine her age.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges, finding that the complainant's evidence regarding coercion was unreliable and that the accused, who suffered from significant intellectual disabilities including FASD and ARND, had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age given his personal circumstances and cognitive limitations.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to admit autopsy, hospital, and clothing photographs of the deceased.

The defence objected, arguing the photographs were excessive, unnecessary, and unduly prejudicial.

The court applied the test of relevance and probative value versus prejudicial effect, finding the photographs highly probative for the jury to understand the nature of the injuries and the defendant's statements, and not unduly prejudicial.

The court ruled to admit all vetted photographs, emphasizing their necessity to assist the pathologist's testimony and provide context beyond diagrams.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified contrary to section 259(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused drove a motor vehicle on Highway 401 in Pickering while bound by a provincial suspension.

The accused testified that he was unaware of the suspension, believing it had expired on June 19, 2013, when in fact it remained in effect until June 19, 2015.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the suspension.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant brought a Charter application challenging the admissibility of his inculpatory statement to police.

The defendant alleged that police failed to facilitate his contact with counsel of choice, thereby breaching section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant suffered from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and had a developmental age of 12 to 13 years.

Despite being informed of these significant vulnerabilities by the defendant's Children's Aid Society worker, police proceeded with routine arrest procedures without accommodating the defendant's special needs.

The court found that police willfully disregarded the defendant's disabilities and failed to ensure meaningful contact with counsel of choice.

The court granted the application and excluded the defendant's statement from evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown applied to adduce evidence under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code at a preliminary inquiry for a second degree murder charge.

The Crown sought to introduce various evidence including photographs, statements from ambulance attendants, victim statements to her lawyer and mother, video and audio recordings, cell phone records and text messages, forensic reports, and pathology reports.

The defence opposed admission of the victim's statements to her lawyer and mother.

The court admitted most of the Crown's proposed evidence, finding it credible and trustworthy under the s. 540(7) threshold.

The court also admitted the victim's statements to her mother and lawyer, finding they met the threshold test and that the witnesses had sufficient reliability despite potential credibility issues.