T.J.W. appealed his sentence of five years for two counts of sexual interference, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to identify his advanced age (76 at sentencing) as a mitigating factor and by giving insufficient weight to other mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was aware of the appellant's age and considered it, and that defence counsel did not present evidence of health conditions or specific impacts of incarceration due to age.

The court concluded that the trial judge gave due weight to all relevant factors, including family support and community contributions, and that the sentence was within the appropriate range, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

A lawyer pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000, having misappropriated over $3.2 million from multiple clients and estates through a profound breach of trust.

The court sentenced him to 58 months imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence due to the gravity, duration, and significant impact of the fraud, and the exploitation of his professional position.

Restitution orders were issued in favour of the Law Society of Ontario and one estate, while a claim for legal fees by another victim was declined.

The defendant, Clyde Williams, was convicted of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust (as a Senior Pastor), grooming, victim vulnerability (minor and employee), duration and repetition of offences, and the profound harm caused to the victims (M.M. and D.D.).

Mitigating factors included his unblemished record and potential for rehabilitation, though tempered by his lack of remorse and denial of culpability.

The court applied sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and totality, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, with specific terms for each offence.

The offender, Abu Mandal, was convicted of selling items intended for the production of a Schedule I substance (methamphetamine) contrary to s. 7.1(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a 2.5-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed a fine and probation or a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the offence and the harm caused by methamphetamine, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of criminal record, advanced age (77), and low risk of reoffending.

The court found that a period of incarceration was warranted but deemed the Crown's proposed sentence excessive given the offender's age and personal circumstances.

A sentence of 1 year in custody followed by 2 years probation was imposed, and a discretionary DNA order was declined.

Jacques Trudel was found guilty of possession of over two kilograms of methamphetamine for trafficking, possession of hydromorphone, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of seven to nine years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or two to three years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity of drugs, Trudel's principal role, and his lengthy criminal record, and mitigating factors such as his age, serious health conditions (HIV, Hepatitis C), and four years under strict house arrest.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, distinguishing Trudel's case from that of a co-accused due to his leadership role and failure to seek addiction treatment.

While acknowledging the impact of age, health, and house arrest, the court found these factors did not warrant a substantial reduction from the appropriate sentencing range for drug trafficking.

Trudel was sentenced to six and a half years of incarceration for trafficking, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence of 9 months in custody, plus 12 months’ probation, for indecent assault.

He argued that the trial judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence, particularly given his health issues and fear of contracting COVID-19 in prison, and by failing to give sufficient weight to rehabilitation and specific deterrence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's decision.

The court affirmed that the principles of denunciation and deterrence were paramount in this case, outweighing mitigating factors, and reiterated that concerns about incarceration conditions due to health or COVID-19 are best addressed by correctional and parole authorities, not by disproportionately reducing a fit sentence.

The appellant, M.F., appealed his convictions for three counts of sexual assault and sought leave to appeal his seven-and-a-half-year sentence.

The conviction appeal argued that the trial judge erred in failing to properly consider evidence of the appellant's physical incapacity (shoulder injury and erectile dysfunction).

The sentence appeal argued errors in imposing escalating consecutive sentences and insufficient consideration of the appellant's age as a mitigating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence or insufficient reasons by the trial judge.

While granting leave to appeal sentence, the Court dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the total sentence fit despite an error in escalating individual sentences, given the serious nature of the assaults and the complainant's vulnerability.

The appellant, Hubert Nathanial Shilling, appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual interference and sought leave to appeal his four-and-a-half-year sentence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility, the rejection of a motive to fabricate, and the use of corroborating evidence.

The appellant also brought a fresh evidence motion, citing his contraction of COVID-19 and a PTSD diagnosis during incarceration, seeking a reduced sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion, the conviction appeal, and the sentence appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's reasoning or the fitness of the sentence.