This sentencing decision by Justice B. Green in the Ontario Court of Justice addresses the sexual assault and assault convictions of Daniel Hall.

The judgment provides a detailed factual background of the offence, emphasizing the victim's vulnerability and the violent nature of the assaults.

The court carefully considers the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the principle of restraint, especially given the offender's lack of prior criminal record at the time of the offence.

The decision extensively reviews relevant appellate and Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly the landmark R. v. Friesen decision, to establish the appropriate sentencing range for sexual offences involving vulnerable victims.

The court ultimately sentences Mr. Hall to five years' incarceration for sexual assault, with concurrent six months for assault, alongside ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA registration, DNA submission, weapons prohibition, and an eight-year peace bond to protect the victim.

Lewis Moye pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, highlighting mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a prior record, guilty plea, efforts towards rehabilitation, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on his moral culpability.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation with community service, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the firearm.

The judge balanced the seriousness of the offence with the offender's strong rehabilitation prospects and background circumstances, concluding that a conditional sentence could adequately achieve sentencing objectives.

This is a Crown appeal of an 18-month custodial sentence imposed on the respondent for making child pornography, distributing child pornography, and voyeurism involving two child victims.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by elevating the offender's age and rehabilitation potential over denunciation and deterrence, and by failing to recognize a breach of trust.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly balanced the sentencing objectives, including the principle of restraint for young first offenders, and did not err in not finding a breach of trust.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, arguing the sentencing judge erred in principle by prioritizing the offender's age and failing to address aggravating factors like the familial relationship, resulting in an unfit sentence.

The accused, William Schatz, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a 17-year-old student.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the egregious breach of trust by a teacher and the profound, long-lasting impact on the victim and her sister.

Mitigating factors included the accused's guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, and strong community support.

The Crown sought a two-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed a 6 to 12-month conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, emphasizing that carceral sentences are the norm for sexual offences against children, and imposed an 18-month incarceration period followed by two years of probation.

The court declined to impose a SOIRA order, finding it disproportionate given the accused's low risk of reoffending and the significant time elapsed since the offence.

The Crown appealed a three-year penitentiary sentence imposed on the respondent for sexually assaulting a developmentally disabled woman.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to properly apply the Friesen principles, which dictate that sexual offences against vulnerable individuals akin to children are inherently wrongful and require substantial sentences.

The sentencing judge mistakenly reduced the respondent's moral culpability by considering factors such as the absence of overt sexual objectification and "generous" treatment of the victim.

The Court found the original sentence demonstrably unfit and increased it to six years, ordering the respondent's reincarceration despite his recent release on day parole.

The accused, a former teacher, was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference against a former student, M.L., who was 15 at the time of the offence.

The sexual assault count was stayed under the Kienapple principle, and the court proceeded to sentence the accused on the sexual interference count.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the victim's age, the significant impact on the victim, and the grooming behaviour by the accused.

Mitigating factors included the accused's first-offender status and strong community support.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and noting that conditional sentences are rarely appropriate for sexual offences against children, the court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, communication prohibition, and sex offender registry placement.