Nicole Lamphier

Sentencing of two co-accused who pleaded guilty to ten counts including possession of stolen property, theft of motor vehicles, and breach of release orders arising from an organized auto-theft ring targeting hotel parking lots across Halton, Peel, and Toronto.

The operation involved sophisticated methods including vehicle reprogramming, GPS disabling, use of aliases, and transport to shipping containers.

The court accepted joint sentencing positions, imposing a global sentence of 3 years and 5.3 months (731 days going forward) for Bello Reyes and 2.5 years (347 days going forward) for Habibzai, with enhanced pre-sentence custody credits reflecting harsh institutional conditions including triple-bunking.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as paramount sentencing principles given the epidemic of auto theft in Ontario.

This is a ruling on a section 715.1 application by the defendant A.T. to admit a child victim's videotaped statement as evidence in a trial involving allegations of assault.

The Crown opposed, arguing the child did not "describe the acts complained of" as required by the section, as the child denied the alleged assault (hair pulling) in her statement.

The court found that a non-verbal denial (shaking head "no") constitutes a "description" under section 715.1, and that the section does not require an affirmative or guilt-consistent description.

The application was granted, emphasizing the section's purpose to preserve the child's earliest recollection and aid truth discovery, regardless of whether the statement supports the prosecution's theory.

The defendant, Jody Ralph Hall, was charged with two counts of breaching a release order by contacting the complainant and one count of criminally harassing the complainant.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including gift items, handwriting analysis, and surveillance video.

The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence, requiring that guilt be the only reasonable inference.

The judge found that the Crown failed to prove the defendant's involvement in two of the three alleged incidents beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the "repeatedly" element of the criminal harassment charge was not met.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in their first-degree murder and attempted murder trial.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 37.12 months (1129 days).

The court deducted 98 days for defence delay (preference for consecutive preliminary inquiry dates) and 11 days for judicial illness, resulting in a net delay of 33.53 months (1020 days), which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The Crown argued that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic and the complexity of the case.

The court found the case to be of moderate complexity and attributed 107 days (3.53 months) of the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic's systemic impact and backlog.

This brought the net delay down to 30 months, falling within the presumptive ceiling.

The court also found that the defence had not demonstrated meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of conspiracy to kidnap, conspiracy to commit assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats.

The offences arose from a plan to abduct and torture a victim over an alleged drug debt, which was thwarted by police intervention.

The court weighed the heinous nature of the planned violence and the offender's role as the ringleader against his limited criminal record and positive community involvement.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 3 years' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody credit.

Sentencing for sexual interference and two counts of invitation to sexual touching arising from three sexual encounters between an adult business owner and a 13-year-old complainant.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code and applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Friesen to reject a low reformatory sentence.

Significant aggravating factors included the complainant's age, the profound age difference, repeated offences over several weeks, the high degree of bodily violation, and the offender's criminal record and poor compliance history.

The court imposed a global penitentiary sentence of 4 years and 10 months, with concurrent terms on the invitation counts, and made DNA, SOIRA, no-contact, and weapons prohibition orders, but declined a s. 161 order.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations of historical sexual touching by a physician against a former patient, the court held that the Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court treated delay in disclosure and continued contact with the accused as neutral considerations, but found serious reliability concerns arising from the genesis of the complaint during a psychological assessment and from numerous inconsistencies between the complainant’s prior statements and trial evidence.

The court concluded that the complainant may have been sincere but mistaken, and that her stated memories were not shown to be anchored in real-life events.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused, a 29-year-old pizzeria owner, was charged with sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a 13-year-old complainant.

The accused admitted to the sexual acts but raised a mistake of age defence, claiming he believed the complainant was 16.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found that he failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age, ignoring multiple 'red flags' such as her brother's age and her school grade.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act and driving with a suspended licence contrary to Section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the suspended licence charge.

At trial, the court found the defendant guilty of careless driving after determining that the defendant's prolonged and repeated focus on a bee that entered the vehicle, rather than on the roadway and driving, fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable, average, careful driver.

The defendant's inattention led to the vehicle veering onto a gravel shoulder, overcorrecting multiple times, and ultimately rolling three to four times, resulting in two fatalities.

The court found that while the initial swatting at the bee was a reflexive action, the continued focus on the bee beyond that initial moment constituted careless driving.

The accused pleaded guilty to wilfully damaging a van belonging to Bell Media Inc. and being a member of an unlawful assembly during an alcohol-fuelled riot near Fanshawe College in London, Ontario.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of three to six months followed by probation with community service.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence order.

The court imposed an 8-month conditional sentence order with strict terms including house arrest for the first five months, abstinence from alcohol and non-prescription drugs, 50 hours of community service, and mandatory counselling, followed by a 15-month probation order with additional conditions.