Court of Justice

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.

A young person was charged with threatening bodily harm against a 16-year-old complainant following a Facebook conversation in which the defendant described violent sexual fantasies involving cutting, breaking bones, and rape.

The defendant, who had recently turned 18, was a member of the same high school band as the complainant.

The Crown alleged the defendant uttered threats; the defence argued he merely expressed fantasies and desires, not intended actions.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that despite the defendant's statements that he did not want to hurt the complainant, his clear declarations that he did not care about the complainant's consent and his assertion "I want to cut u....so why can't I" constituted threats meant to be taken seriously.

The court considered the context of the entire conversation, the brevity of the relationship, the document found in the defendant's possession containing similar violent sexual fantasies, and the complainant's eventual fear upon reflection.

The accused, a young person charged with first degree murder, sought access to the pre-sentence report and psychological assessment prepared for his co-accused, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and would testify as a Crown witness.

The court ruled on an application under section 119(1)(q) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for access to these records.

The Crown argued access should be limited to statements about the offence itself, while the defence sought access to all relevant information.

The court granted full access to the unedited records, finding that access during the "access period" is mandatory rather than discretionary when necessary for full answer and defence.

The Highland Shores Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship of a child born to parents with significant challenges.

The mother has developmental delays affecting her ability to care for the child independently.

The father struggles with alcohol abuse and domestic conflict characterizes their relationship.

Despite intensive support and supervision, the parents failed to comply with court-ordered conditions.

The court found the child in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b)(i) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act and ordered Crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

This is a motion for access brought by the father to his two children within the context of a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection application.

The father faced criminal charges for sexual assault and sexual interference with his daughter.

The Children's Aid Society opposed access, arguing that contact with the alleged abuser would be harmful to the child during trauma assessment and treatment.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence of sexual molestation but determined that supervised access could be safely structured.

The court rejected the Society's reliance on an unqualified expert opinion and found a presumption in favour of access under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court granted temporary supervised access at the Society's office at least twice per week, subject to specific conditions.

The Crown sought an adult sentence for a young person convicted of second degree murder in the stabbing death of a 49-year-old man.

The young person was 16 years old at the time of the offence.

The court considered whether a youth sentence would be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable for his offending behaviour under section 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that despite the seriousness of the offence, the young person's age, troubled background, lack of prior violence, genuine remorse, and substantial rehabilitation progress while in custody over three years supported a youth sentence rather than an adult sentence.

A Charter motion challenging a trespass notice issued during an Occupy Ottawa demonstration at Confederation Park.

The applicant, who participated in the occupation for approximately 48 hours, was directed to vacate the park and charged with failing to comply with a trespass directive under the Trespass to Property Act.

The applicant contended that the directive infringed her rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that although the directive did infringe these rights, the infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The court applied the Furtherance of Values test and the Oakes test, concluding that the city's bylaws and regulations governing park use were constitutionally valid and that the trespass notice was appropriately issued to restore the park to its lawful function.

A motion was brought to determine whether transcripts of children's evidence from a preliminary hearing in criminal proceedings were admissible in a child protection trial without making the children available for cross-examination.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed cross-examination, arguing it would cause trauma to the children and that the transcripts should be admitted as hearsay under the principled exception or under section 50 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court held that the requirement of necessity had not been met, as there was insufficient evidence of psychological trauma beyond mere nervousness.

The court ruled that the children must be made available for cross-examination, subject to protective safeguards including closed-circuit television, a support person, and cross-examination only by the mother's counsel.

A 14-year-old girl pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing an 18-year-old victim in the thigh during a street altercation, causing serious physical and psychological injuries including damage to the victim's femoral artery.

The Crown sought the maximum two-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought time served plus probation.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 10 months custody and supervision (6 months net after pre-sentence custody credit) followed by 13 months of probation, with the offender to remain in secure custody at Syl Apps.

The court found that despite the offender's youth, genuine remorse, and lack of prior record, a custodial disposition was necessary to provide the highly structured environment and access to treatment required for her rehabilitation, given her history of inadequate parental supervision, anger management issues, and non-compliance with bail conditions.

A young person pleaded guilty to robbery while armed with a handgun.

The Crown sought a custody and supervision order of six to nine months, while the defence sought probation.

The court imposed a mixed sentence consisting of five months probation followed by four months in open custody and two months community supervision, with a review scheduled to potentially convert the custodial portion to additional probation.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence against the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness, the young person's early guilty plea, family support, and rehabilitation potential.