Paolo Giancaterino

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The offender had sexual intercourse with his daughter and sexually touched her on multiple occasions over several years prior to October 2017.

The victim became pregnant and underwent an abortion.

DNA testing confirmed the offender was the father.

The Crown sought 8-10 years imprisonment; defence counsel sought 5 years.

The court imposed a 9-year penitentiary sentence, reduced to 8 years and 320 days after crediting 45 days of pre-trial custody.

The offender was prohibited from seeking employment or volunteering with persons under 16, ordered to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years, and ordered to provide a DNA sample.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and breaches of probation, as well as his 40-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge unevenly scrutinized his credibility compared to the complainant cab driver, and that the sentencing judge failed to apply the jump principle and give appropriate weight to his rehabilitation efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's credibility findings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the increased violence of the robbery justified the sentence and the judge properly considered the appellant's rehabilitation efforts, except the victim surcharge was set aside.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, blood alcohol over legal limit causing accident resulting in death, and blood alcohol over legal limit causing accident resulting in bodily harm.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to consider relevant evidence.

The primary defence theory was that the Crown failed to prove the appellant was driving the van, suggesting the appellant and a passenger could have switched positions.

The appellate court found no misapprehension of evidence and no failure to consider relevant evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

Four co-accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on all charges, alleging violation of their right to trial within a reasonable time.

The charges included numerous break and enter offences and drug offences.

The court found that the total delay from October 18, 2017 (date charges laid) to the anticipated completion of trial in April 2020 was 30 months.

After deducting defence-caused delay (7 months and 25 days), waiver (1 day), discrete events (5 days), and case complexity (3 months), the net delay was 19 months, exceeding the Jordan ceiling of 18 months for provincial court trials.

The court granted the stay of proceedings, finding that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay through exceptional circumstances.

Key issues included late and disorganized disclosure from police and Crown, inadequate trial time allocation, and the departure of the case manager from the police investigation without replacement.

The accused pleaded guilty to incest and making child pornography involving his teenage daughter.

The offences occurred over a three-week period after the daughter moved in with him.

The court considered the accused's significant criminal record, substance abuse issues, and partial lack of insight as aggravating factors.

The early guilty plea, which spared the victim from testifying, was a significant mitigating factor.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years' incarceration, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, K.G.A. and A.S.A., were charged with human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, advertising sexual services, and K.G.A. was also charged with criminal harassment.

The charges stemmed from allegations by P.J., who claimed she was exploited in the sex trade in Ottawa.

The court conducted a thorough assessment of P.J.'s credibility and reliability, finding significant inconsistencies, memory issues due to intoxication and drug use, and evasiveness in her testimony.

The court concluded that it would be dangerous to convict the accused based on P.J.'s evidence.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the conduct or purpose elements for human trafficking, the material benefit, or the advertising charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

For criminal harassment, the alleged words were not found to be threatening or intimidating to a reasonable person in the circumstances.

All charges against K.G.A. and A.S.A. were dismissed, and acquittals were entered.

The applicant, Rodney Helmer, sought to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence seized from his residence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The search warrant was based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) that relied on information from four confidential informants (CIs) and police surveillance, alleging cocaine trafficking.

The court conducted a Garofoli review, assessing the compelling nature, credibility, and corroboration of the CI information using the Debot criteria.

Despite some deficiencies in the ITO, including misleading characterizations and omissions, the court found the totality of the information, as modified on review, sufficiently reliable to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The application was dismissed, as no Charter breach was found.

Criminal trial on multiple historical allegations of sexual and physical abuse within a family, involving four complainants and a lengthy alleged period of offending.

The court focused on credibility and reliability, including delayed disclosure, internal inconsistencies, contradictions among sibling witnesses, possible collusion, and the absence of contemporaneous observations by third parties despite repeated contact with child protection, school, and medical professionals.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard and the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence but held that the totality of the Crown evidence remained insufficiently reliable to prove any count beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused, C.R., was sentenced after being convicted of 10 counts of abuse against four of his children, including aggravated assault (tattooing), assault with a weapon (knife), assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and simple assault.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, C.R.'s personal circumstances, and aggravating and mitigating factors, with primary consideration given to denunciation and deterrence as mandated for offences against children.

The Crown sought 6-7 years incarceration, while the defence sought 2-2.5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years incarceration, crediting 35 days for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 3 years and 330 days in a penitentiary.

The sentence was broken down into concurrent and consecutive terms for the various counts.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total time from the charges to the anticipated end of the second trial was 53 months.

The court deducted 10 months of defence delay and 11 months of delay caused by a mistrial, which was deemed an exceptional circumstance.

The net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

A 51-year-old first offender pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and making child pornography available.

His collection was one of the largest and worst ever encountered by the Ottawa Police Service, containing over 28,000 unique images and 1,144 unique videos, with 95% depicting explicit sexual activity including children as young as one year old.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of two years less one day followed by three years' probation, reasoning that probation would ensure the accused received counselling.

The Crown appealed, arguing the sentence was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle by giving primary effect to rehabilitation rather than denunciation and general deterrence, which are the paramount sentencing objectives for child pornography offences.

The appellant appealed his sentence of eight years imprisonment for sexually assaulting his girlfriend's daughter over a period of approximately one year beginning when the victim was 12 years old.

The appellant sought leave to appeal and argued that the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately consider his guilty plea, rehabilitative potential, and Aboriginal background under the Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred in requiring a causal connection between the appellant's Aboriginal background and the offences, the sentence remained fit given the gravity of the crimes and their devastating impact on the victim.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and making child pornography available.

His devices contained 133,266 images (28,052 unique) and 3,032 videos (1,144 unique) depicting extreme sexual abuse of children as young as one year old.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day in custody for possession, followed by three years probation, with a concurrent one-year sentence for making available.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence as paramount objectives under section 718.01 of the Criminal Code against mitigating factors including genuine remorse, psychological assessment indicating low risk of reoffending, and voluntary engagement in treatment.

Robert Martineau pleaded guilty to conspiracy to unlawfully possess/sell unstamped tobacco products and possession of property obtained by crime, related to 384 cases of cigarettes over 15 events.

The Crown sought a two-year custodial sentence, while the defence requested an 18-24 month conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Martineau's leadership role, lack of remorse, and profit motive, and mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and strict pre-trial release conditions.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, and parity, the court imposed an 18-month incarceration sentence, reduced by 6 months for pre-trial custody (enhanced credit of 2:1) and a further 4 months for the onerous 44-month release conditions, resulting in 8 months remaining incarceration.

No probation was imposed.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and related offences, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence.

He argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant contained inaccurate information, material omissions, and relied on an untested confidential informant, thereby violating his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court reviewed the ITO, including amplification evidence from cross-examinations, and concluded there were no intentional misstatements meant to mislead the authorizing Justice.

The court found that the cumulative evidence, including police surveillance and informant tips, provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following a stabbing at a house party.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the attacker.

The accused testified and denied stabbing the complainant, but the court rejected his evidence due to significant inconsistencies with his post-arrest statement.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by DNA evidence on the knife and a Facebook message from the accused expressing remorse.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

Kristopher McLellan and Kyle Mullen were cited for contempt of court after refusing to testify at the second-degree murder trial of Sam Tsega.

Both had previously provided statements to police and, in McLellan's case, testified at his own murder trial, implicating Tsega.

The court found both guilty of contempt.

Considering aggravating factors such as the refusal to testify in a murder trial, the highly probative nature of their evidence, the disruption to the trial, and their criminal records, alongside mitigating factors like no prior contempt, respectful conduct, and the risks associated with being labeled an informant in prison, the court sentenced each to 30 months imprisonment, to be served consecutively to their existing life sentences.

Sentencing decision following jury convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, assault, uttering threats, dangerous driving, and mischief arising from attacks on two vulnerable sex trade workers.

The court treated denunciation and general deterrence as the dominant sentencing objectives, emphasizing predation on vulnerable women, use of a knife, and multiple penetrative sexual assaults.

The court also considered harsh remand conditions as a modest mitigating factor and applied enhanced pre-sentence custody credit under ss. 719(3) and 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

A seven-year global sentence was imposed, reduced by four years' credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving an additional three-year custodial term, with ancillary weapons, DNA, no-contact, and SOIRA orders.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, proposing a new surety and GPS ankle monitoring as new evidence.

The court found the proposed surety lacked credibility and that GPS monitoring was insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of the applicant reoffending.

The application was dismissed as the new evidence did not meet the Palmer test to justify a review of the initial detention order.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar act evidence between two alleged sexual assaults involving different complainants.

The incidents involved sex trade workers who were allegedly lured into a vehicle, threatened with a knife, and sexually assaulted.

The court considered the governing principles from leading authorities on similar fact evidence and assessed whether the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect.

Given the strong DNA evidence, significant factual similarities between the incidents, and lack of evidence of collusion, the court concluded that the evidence had substantial probative value on issues of identity, consent, and use of a weapon.

The Crown’s application to admit the similar act evidence was granted.