Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

Sentencing for sexual interference and making child pornography where the offender sexually exploited her young child and created and distributed sexualized recordings to an adult sexual partner.

The court rejected the position that the offender had been coerced or was in a severe mental health crisis, finding instead that the chat logs demonstrated willing and assertive participation and use of the child as currency for the offender's own sexual gratification.

Applying the governing sentencing principles for sexual offences against children, the court placed primary weight on denunciation and deterrence, emphasizing the profound breach of trust, the victim's age, the distribution of videos, and the enduring harm from internet circulation.

Guilty pleas, lack of criminal record, admissions to police, counselling, and limited mental health and risk evidence were mitigating but carried reduced weight.

Consecutive custodial terms totalling six years were imposed, together with SOIRA, DNA, and long-term ancillary orders.

Sentencing for historical child sexual offences, assault, and pointing a firearm arising from a grooming relationship between an adult in a position of trust and a 12-year-old complainant.

The court treated the devastating long-term impact on the complainant, abuse of trust, grooming, use of intoxicants, sexualized coercion, threats of violence, and the offender's similar prior record as major aggravating factors.

Although the offender had engaged in extensive counselling, demonstrated insight, remorse, and was assessed as presenting a relatively low risk of reoffending, the court held that contemporary sentencing principles for sexual violence against children required a penitentiary sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

A conditional sentence was found unavailable and, in any event, disproportionate.

A global sentence of five years' imprisonment was imposed with DNA, lifetime SOIRA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders.

The accused was convicted of arson causing damage to property and mischief endangering life following a trial.

The Crown sought a sentence of 2 to 2½ years imprisonment, while the defence sought 90 days on an intermittent basis.

The court imposed 18 months concurrent imprisonment on each charge, followed by three years probation, with conditions including no contact with the victims, a 100-meter exclusion zone, weapons prohibition, DNA order, and mandatory counselling for anger management.

The court emphasized that arson convictions warrant significant sentences regardless of mitigating circumstances, and that conditional sentences are generally inappropriate in arson cases.

The defendant was charged with Operation Impaired and Blow Over 80 following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant applied to exclude breath test results based on alleged Charter breaches, including violations of section 8 (search and seizure), section 10(b) (right to counsel), and section 9 (arbitrary detention) rights.

The court found that the officer breached the defendant's section 10(b) rights by failing to inform him immediately of his right to counsel and by facilitating access to a paralegal rather than a lawyer, without explaining the distinction.

The court excluded the breath test results under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also found a reasonable doubt regarding care or control of the vehicle and impairment without the breath readings.

Both charges were dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to 11 Criminal Code offences involving the sexual abuse of children and the creation and possession of child pornography.

The offences included four counts of making child pornography, four counts of making child pornography available, two counts of invitation to sexual touching, and one count of sexual interference.

The offender abused five identifiable children, including his own biological daughter and his girlfriend's daughters, all under the age of 10.

He also possessed 1,868 images and 95 videos of child pornography across multiple devices, with many depicting severe abuse of very young children.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years and 3 months, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, lifetime SOIRA registration, lifetime weapons prohibition, and a 20-year Section 161 order.

The defendant brought an application to stay proceedings for violation of his s.11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The defendant was arrested on September 8, 2014, charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The trial was originally scheduled for July 13-15, 2016, but was adjourned due to defence counsel illness, with an express s.11(b) waiver.

A new trial date was set for September 26-27, 2017.

The court found that the net delay under the Jordan framework was 585 days (approximately 19.2 months), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The court determined that the Crown failed to justify the delay under the transitional exceptional circumstance, particularly due to significant Crown delay caused by a missing Crown file for over four months.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The Crown sought leave to withdraw charges against four defendants (three members of Batchewana First Nation and one self-identified Métis individual) for unlawfully harvesting forest resources in Crown forests without proper licenses, contrary to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The defendants opposed the withdrawal, arguing the prosecution was a vehicle to establish aboriginal and treaty rights.

The court granted the Crown leave to withdraw the charges, finding it was in the public interest to resolve such complex aboriginal issues outside the criminal forum.

However, the court awarded substantial costs against the Crown for its delay in withdrawing the charges and for failing to reassess its position when it received the defendants' expert report in May 2014.

The court awarded $90,000 to Clinton Robinson and $300,000 to the three other defendants.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of criminal harassment contrary to section 264 of the Criminal Code for non-consensually distributing intimate images of the complainant on a pornographic website.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court found the offence to be serious given the prevalence of non-consensual sexting, the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused's degree of responsibility.

However, the court considered the accused's exemplary character, rehabilitation efforts, remorse, guilty plea, and the collateral consequences already suffered.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, no contact with the complainant, and restrictions on possessing intimate images.

The accused was charged with aggravated sexual assault contrary to section 273(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused had non-consensual intercourse with the complainant without informing her of his HIV-positive status.

The central issues were whether the complainant slept in the couple's bed and whether sexual intercourse occurred.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's denials, and found him guilty of the charge.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess credibility and found that the complainant and the accused's wife provided consistent corroborating evidence regarding key details, while the accused's account was evasive and contradicted by both witnesses.

A 12-year-old defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm after punching a 13-year-old complainant during a schoolyard altercation over a soccer ball, resulting in a dislodged tooth requiring extensive dental work.

The trial judge found that while the defendant intentionally applied force causing bodily harm, the complainant's consent to the fight could be inferred from the circumstances, and the defendant did not intend to cause serious harm.

The court held that consent was not vitiated by the bodily harm caused, and therefore acquitted the defendant.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning four accused charged with multiple offences under the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought committal on various counts including possession of firearms, ammunition, and cocaine.

The court considered whether there was sufficient evidence for each accused on contested counts.

The court committed some accused on certain counts while discharging them on others, applying the test that an accused will be committed if there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could convict.

The defendant was charged with four counts of sexual offences against a complainant who was between 11 and 13 years old between 1993 and 1995, when the defendant was between 25 and 27 years old.

The charges included sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defence conceded that no consent defence under section 150.1 of the Criminal Code applied.

The trial turned on credibility and the burden of proof.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness whose testimony was corroborated by her friend's observations and attendance at the defendant's home.

The defendant's evidence was rejected as lacking credibility due to inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The Crown stayed one charge at the conclusion of trial.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault of two children (his stepchild and biological child), counselling another person to make child pornography, and possessing child pornography.

The offences involved possession of hundreds of explicit images of children, online communications requesting specific sexual acts be performed on children, and direct sexual contact with his own children.

The court imposed a global sentence of approximately six years, comprising a three-year penitentiary sentence plus credit for pre-plea custody exceeding twenty-three months, with concurrent sentences for the various offences.

The court also imposed a ten-year prohibition order, DNA order, ten-year internet restriction order, and required compliance with sex offender registration.

The accused pleaded guilty to counselling to make child pornography and counselling to transmit child pornography.

The Crown and defence reached a joint submission on sentence, but disagreed on whether a weapons prohibition under s. 110 of the Criminal Code was appropriate.

The court imposed a three-year weapons prohibition, finding that offences involving child pornography inherently constitute violence against persons within the meaning of s. 110(1)(a), and that the accused's conduct included implicit threats of sexual violence against children.

A youth aged 17 years and one month committed two counts of attempted murder and one count of sexual assault against a mother and her five-year-old child in their home on February 28, 2011.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under section 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the offences were extremely serious, involving a prolonged attack including sexual assault, repeated violent physical assaults, and a deliberate attempt to murder both victims by setting a fire.

The offender had limited cognitive abilities, borderline intellectual functioning, and a family background that fostered antisocial attitudes.

While the offender demonstrated positive behaviour and engagement in programming during pre-sentence detention, his progress was slow and his insight into the harm caused to victims was limited.

The court determined that a youth sentence would be insufficient to hold the offender accountable and that an adult sentence was necessary to provide for continued rehabilitation in a structured setting and a lengthy period of community supervision.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of accessing child pornography.

The offender obtained approximately 616 electronic files containing child pornography depicting children aged 6 to 12 years old engaged in various forms of sexual exploitation and abuse.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months imprisonment followed by 24 months probation, considering the gravity of the offence, the mandatory minimum jail term, the offender's guilty plea, positive pre-sentence report, low risk of reoffending, and rehabilitative potential, while emphasizing the objectives of denunciation and deterrence under section 718.01 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with assault, theft, and criminal harassment arising from a relationship breakdown.

The complainant alleged the accused grabbed her neck, splashed water in her eyes, and stole her cellphone, diaries, and address book on January 7, 2010.

Subsequently, the accused allegedly distributed non-consensual intimate images and created a fake dating profile in the complainant's name to 20-30 of her relatives, friends, and church associates between February 16 and March 6, 2010.

The court found the accused guilty of theft and criminal harassment but acquitted him of assault due to reasonable doubt regarding the police report noting no assaults.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of 6-9 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation.

The defence sought an intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by 3 years probation with ancillary orders.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence against significant mitigating factors including the accused's early guilty plea, genuine remorse, commitment to counselling, family support, and low risk to re-offend as assessed by a forensic psychiatrist.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and two counts of sexual touching of his pre-pubescent granddaughter between 2006 and 2009.

The Crown called the complainant and her mother as witnesses.

The defence called the complainant's aunt and grandmother.

The complainant provided a videotaped statement to police and testified at trial regarding multiple incidents of alleged sexual abuse.

The defendant did not testify.

The court found the complainant to be reliable and believable overall, and found corroborating evidence in the defendant's admission to providing cigarettes to the complainant.

However, the court identified significant improbabilities in the complainant's account, including the alleged 30-minute fondling in a lit room with family members present, the complainant's willingness to visit her grandparents after alleged abuse, and inconsistencies regarding scratches on her breasts.

The court concluded that while the allegations were probably true, they fell short of the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, a former elementary school teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a student during the 1994-95 school year when the complainant was 13-14 years old.

The complainant alleged that the accused engaged in inappropriate sexual contact including kissing, hand-holding, and masturbation over several months.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming his conduct was limited to appropriate academic support and encouragement.

The trial judge found significant reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding recovered memories obtained through therapy and the provenance of an Italian pendant allegedly given as a gift.

Although the judge found the complainant's testimony generally credible and preferred it over the accused's evidence, the judge concluded that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to these reliability concerns and reasonable doubt arising from the accused's testimony.