P. Affleck

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference arising from allegations that he sexually touched a child in his care over a prolonged period in a shared family home.

The court applied the governing principles on the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, assessment of child witnesses, and motive to fabricate.

The child complainant's evidence was accepted as truthful and reliable, and was materially confirmed by the mother's eyewitness evidence of a highly incriminating incident immediately preceding disclosure.

The accused's denial was rejected, including because his account of the critical exchange with the mother shifted in cross-examination and appeared tailored to provide an innocent explanation.

Convictions were entered on both charges.

Giuseppe Fazzina, a chronic recidivist with 74 prior convictions, including numerous impaired driving and driving while prohibited offences, pleaded guilty to two counts of driving with excessive blood alcohol, five counts of driving while prohibited, and four counts of failing to comply with an undertaking, stemming from five separate incidents between 2020 and 2023.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his extensive and related criminal record, being on parole, high impairment levels, and dangerous driving, and mitigating factors including guilty pleas and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The judge emphasized deterrence, denunciation, and separation from society as dominant objectives, finding rehabilitation not a significant factor.

A total sentence of 10 years imprisonment was imposed, less credit for time served, along with lifetime and 10-year driving prohibitions and a DNA order.

Zachary Gibson pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the brutal killing of Michael Grawberger.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, which is set at 17 years, considering aggravating factors such as the brutal, planned nature of the attack, its domestic context, and the broad impact on victims, balanced against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The defendant, Jennifer Castillo, was sentenced for intentionally or recklessly causing a fire and willfully causing property damage over $5,000.

The court considered various reports, including a pre-sentence report and a forensic psychological assessment, and the defendant's compliance with bail.

The Crown sought an 18-month conditional sentence and 3 years probation, while the defendant proposed a 1-year conditional sentence and 2 years probation, emphasizing her mental health challenges and rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence (6 months house arrest, 6 months curfew) followed by 2 years probation, ordered a DNA sample, and stayed the mischief charge.

The Crown's request for GPS monitoring was denied.

The accused, Jennifer Castillo, was charged with arson (s. 434 Criminal Code) and wilfully causing property damage exceeding $5,000 (s. 430 Criminal Code) following a fire at her rented basement unit.

The court, relying on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony, found that the accused had exclusive opportunity to start the fire and that it was intentionally set.

The defence's theory of an accidental fire caused by a space heater was rejected as speculative.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally or recklessly caused the fire.

This criminal trial concerned charges of assault with a weapon and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle against Aaron J. George.

The charges arose from an incident in a busy parking lot where the accused, after being told to slow down, intentionally drove his vehicle into a pedestrian, causing him to fall onto the car's hood, and then sped away.

The court found the accused's testimony evasive and inconsistent, preferring the evidence of the Crown's witnesses.

The judge concluded that the accused's driving constituted an objectively dangerous marked departure from the standard of care and that the act of striking the pedestrian was intentional.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

This decision addresses a Garofoli application to review a search warrant for firearms-related offences.

The Information to Obtain (ITO) used to secure the warrant contained significant false, misleading, and unconstitutionally obtained information, which was excised on review.

The court assessed whether, based on the amended record, reasonable grounds existed to believe an offence was committed and that evidence would be found at the residence.

While a thin basis for believing an offence was committed was found, the court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe evidence of the offence would be found at the residence.

This was primarily due to the lack of a direct connection between the firearm and the residence, the fact that the accused was not in possession of the firearm upon arrest, and the extensive misleading information in the original ITO undermining the affiant's credibility.

The search was deemed unreasonable, constituting a s.8 Charter breach.

The s.24(2) Charter analysis regarding the admissibility of seized evidence was deferred.

The accused, Matthew Cecchetto, Dylan Paquette, and Carly Almon, were charged with various drug possession and trafficking offences.

The Crown stayed charges against Cecchetto and Almon.

The trial proceeded against Paquette, focusing on whether he possessed illicit substances found in a locked safe in a motel room.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paquette knew of the substances in the safe and had control over them, as the circumstantial evidence did not lead to the sole reasonable inference of his guilt.

Consequently, all charges against Dylan Paquette were dismissed.

The court also indicated it would have dismissed charges against Cecchetto and Almon had they not been stayed.

The accused, Louise Reid and Melissa Stamper, pleaded guilty to perjury, with Reid also pleading guilty to fraud over $5,000.

The charges arose from a 2005 motor vehicle collision where Reid falsely claimed to be the driver to protect her unlicensed son, subsequently defrauding an insurance company of over $36,000.

Stamper, Reid's daughter, later committed perjury by supporting her mother's false claim in a civil suit.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for offences that undermine the administration of justice.

Considering the unconstitutionality of the statutory preclusion for conditional sentences (as per R. v. Sharma), the court imposed a 6-month conditional sentence for Stamper, citing her lesser culpability, youth at the time of the initial events, and current pregnancy.

Reid received a 9-month custodial sentence (4 months for fraud, 5 months consecutive for perjury), with a reduction to reflect the harsh conditions of incarceration during the pandemic.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault and assault causing bodily harm following a bar incident where he punched a security guard and caused another security guard to strike a wall.

The Crown sought a 30-day custodial sentence with 18 months probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years probation, finding that despite the violent nature of the offence, the accused's status as a youthful first offender, his remorse, acceptance of responsibility, positive presentence report, and rehabilitative prospects warranted restraint over incarceration.

The accused pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood on August 31, 2018, and to impaired driving, dangerous operation, and failing to stop for police on September 8, 2018.

The second offence occurred while the accused was on release for the first charge and bound by an ADLS suspension.

The court imposed a blended sentence consisting of pre-trial custody credited as 14 days, a 90-day intermittent sentence, and a 9-month conditional sentence, along with probation and driving prohibitions.

The sentencing balanced denunciation and deterrence with the accused's demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation and mental health treatment.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of breaking and entering into dwelling homes contrary to section 348(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender committed a series of break-ins into residential homes over a one-month period, targeting vulnerable victims and stealing property of significant value.

The offender had an extensive criminal history including 12 prior break and enter convictions and was on parole at the time of the offences.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with restitution orders totaling $28,076.54 and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm that occurred on July 9, 2016, when he punched the victim twice in the face and threw a bar stool at him while intoxicated at a bar, causing a laceration requiring nine stitches.

The Crown sought a six-month jail sentence followed by two years probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of four to six months.

The court imposed a nine-month conditional sentence with restrictive conditions including house arrest and community service, followed by two years probation, finding that a conditional sentence could achieve the objectives of denunciation and deterrence while promoting rehabilitation and restraint principles.

The accused was charged with invitation to sexual touching contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case rested on the identification evidence of a 14-year-old complainant who encountered a stranger on May 8, 2016, in Newcastle.

The man made sexual advances toward her and later pointed to a hair salon as his residence.

The complainant identified the accused through a Facebook search approximately 11 to 18 days later after overhearing her father mention the name "Richard Pearce." The court found the complainant to be truthful and credible but dismissed the charge due to insufficient reliability of the identification evidence.

The court held that while a conviction can rest on a single eyewitness, the circumstances here—a brief one-minute encounter with a stranger, delayed identification through social media after suggestive circumstances, and limited distinguishing features—created reasonable doubt as to the accused's identity.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of mischief under $5,000 for defacing transit shelters with anti-Muslim graffiti in the Durham region.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of 4-6 months followed by probation with counselling requirements, emphasizing general deterrence.

The defence sought a conditional sentence with community service and counselling.

The court imposed a 5-month jail sentence followed by 15 months probation, finding that a community-based sentence would not meet the principles of sentencing given the hate-motivated nature of the offence, the defendant's criminal history of breaches, and the need for general deterrence in the community.

The accused brought a pre-trial application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of break and enter and possession of property obtained by crime.

The search warrant was obtained based on evidence that a stolen iPhone from a break and enter had been located near the accused's residence using Apple's "Find my iPhone" application.

The accused argued the warrant was invalid due to stale information and lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court rejected both facial and sub-facial challenges to the warrant, finding that the investigating officer had taken adequate investigative steps to establish reasonable grounds and that the warrant could have been issued by the justice of the peace.

The defendant was tried on two counts: sexual assault and sexual interference with a person under the age of 16 years.

The complainant, aged 12 at the time of the alleged offences, testified that the defendant, who was living with her mother, repeatedly came to her bedroom at night and touched her inappropriately on the thigh and breast over a period of several weeks between July and September 2016.

The defendant denied the allegations.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and internally consistent, and rejected the defendant's testimony as evasive and internally inconsistent.

The defendant's sudden departure from the residence immediately following the complainant's disclosure to her mother, combined with his failure to say goodbye to the children and his failure to report his change of address to police, was found to be compelling evidence of guilt.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit three accused for trial on charges arising from the death of Dionecio Nelson on July 2, 2015.

Nathaniel Findley and Andrew Mitchell were charged with second degree murder in Nelson's death; Mitchell also faced two assault with a weapon charges.

Rayanne Mehdi was charged with accessory after the fact.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence establishing that Findley and Mitchell were the occupants of a vehicle that stopped after nearly hitting Nelson, leading to a violent altercation in which Nelson was fatally stabbed multiple times.

The preliminary inquiry judge found reasonable inferences available to a jury that Findley and Mitchell acted as co-perpetrators in a joint enterprise to assault Nelson, knowing that death was a probable consequence.

Findley was committed to stand trial on second degree murder; Mitchell and Mehdi conceded committal on their respective charges.

The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s.5(3)(a.1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime contrary to s.354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Police executed a search warrant at a residential address that was divided into two units without obtaining a separate warrant for the basement apartment.

The Crown conceded a breach of s.8 of the Charter.

The court applied the three-part test from R. v. Grant to determine whether evidence should be excluded under s.24(2).

The court found that the seriousness of the breach and impact on the accused's Charter-protected privacy interests favoured exclusion, despite society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The evidence was excluded and the charges were dismissed.

This is a Dawson Motion brought by multiple defendants in a drug and firearm investigation known as Project Wheeler.

The defendants sought leave to cross-examine the affiant who deposed to the affidavit in support of a wiretap authorization granted by a Superior Court judge.

The defendants challenged two areas: claims about possession of firearms and statements that observations about meetings were indicative of drug trafficking.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate how cross-examination would undermine the preconditions for the wiretap authorization and that the allegations of sweeping generalizations and circular reasoning were not relevant to an attack on facial validity in the circumstances presented.