Patricia Garcia

This decision involves the dangerous offender designation and sentencing of Charles Waddling-Leeson following convictions for multiple violent and sexual offences.

The court found that Waddling-Leeson has a long history of violent and sexual offending, including serious personal injury offences, and has demonstrated a failure to control his sexual impulses.

Expert psychiatric evidence established a very high risk of future sexual and violent recidivism, with diagnoses including antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic traits.

Despite limited engagement with rehabilitative programming and treatment, the offender showed no meaningful insight or remorse.

The court concluded that Waddling-Leeson’s behaviour is intractable and that no lesser sentence than an indeterminate term of imprisonment would adequately protect the public.

Ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and lifelong compliance with the Sex Offender Registration Act were also imposed.

This decision involves the sentencing and long-term supervision order (LTSO) application for Gregory Lock, a repeat offender with a decades-long history of sexual offences against children, including possession and accessing of child pornography.

Despite a prior 10-year LTSO imposed in 2012, Mr. Lock repeatedly breached the order by possessing prohibited materials and devices, culminating in new convictions.

The Court imposed a new 10-year LTSO and a total effective sentence of 12 years imprisonment, with credit for pre-trial custody reducing the penitentiary term to 5.5 years.

The ruling emphasizes the serious nature of child pornography offences, the offender’s high risk of recidivism, and the necessity of denunciatory and deterrent sentences to protect the public, especially children.

Ancillary orders including DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and section 161 prohibitions were also imposed.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Christopher Green to 2 years' imprisonment followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order after he pleaded guilty to multiple child pornography offences and breaches of court orders.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence plus ancillary orders including lifetime prohibitions under ss. 109, 161, DNA, and SOIRA.

The defence argued for time served with enhanced pre-trial credit and opposed the long-term supervision order.

The court found that Green's repeated offending, despite prior sentences and supervision, demonstrated a substantial risk of reoffending, driven by an underlying sexual preference for adolescent males and substance abuse issues.

The court applied the principles from R v Friesen and R v Pike to impose a denunciatory sentence reflecting the gravity of the offences and the harm to victims.

Enhanced pre-trial custody credit was granted due to harsh detention conditions.

The long-term supervision order was imposed for the maximum 10 years to ensure structured supervision and risk management in the community.

This sentencing decision addresses whether strip searches of the accused in pre-sentence custody breached section 8 of the Charter and, if not, whether the frequency and manner of those searches should mitigate sentence.

The court finds no Charter breach but considers the conditions as mitigating.

The court also reviews the appropriate sentencing range for serious gun-related offences, ultimately imposing a nine-year sentence, below the Crown’s request, in light of mitigating factors including the accused’s background, lack of record, and harsh pretrial conditions.

The Crown sought a recognizance under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code against Steven Noel Wice, alleging fear on reasonable grounds that he would commit a serious personal injury offence.

The court reviewed Wice's extensive criminal history, including a prior dangerous offender designation, psychiatric assessments diagnosing antisocial personality disorder and high risk of violent recidivism, and his consistent failure to engage in anger management treatment.

Despite some positive conduct, the court found the Crown's fear objectively reasonable due to Wice's past behaviour and lack of progress in addressing his anger issues.

The court imposed an 8-month recognizance with specific conditions, including reporting, weapons prohibition, substance abstinence (except cannabis), disclosure of intimate relationships, and mandatory anger management treatment.

The offender, E.U., pleaded guilty to sexual interference and aggravated sexual assault against his 10/11-year-old stepdaughter, which resulted in her pregnancy and childbirth at age 11.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including a gross breach of trust, the victim's extremely young age, repeated incidents, severe physical and psychological impact on the victim and her family, the offences occurring in the family home, lack of birth control, and coercion to conceal the pregnancy.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, guilty plea (though attenuated), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for child sexual abuse, the court imposed a global concurrent sentence of 19 years in custody, less pre-sentence custody credit of 3 years and 3 weeks, resulting in 15 years, 11 months, and 1 week remaining to serve.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, lifetime Sex Offender Information Registry Act (SOIRA) order, and a lifetime s. 161 order with specific prohibitions, and a non-communication order with the victim and her child during incarceration.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion seeking an order to compel the defence to file a s. 278.3 application for the production of third-party records of the complainant in an upcoming sexual assault trial.

The Crown argued that such an application should be brought before trial to avoid delays and ensure an orderly proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that compelling the defence to bring a specific application could conflict with counsel's instructions or tactical assessments and would be an inappropriate exercise of judicial trial management powers, potentially compromising the judge's impartiality.

The court emphasized that while judges have broad trial management powers to ensure timely and fair proceedings, these powers do not extend to dictating a party's strategic decisions or compelling them to take specific procedural steps.

The Crown applied for an assessment order under section 752.1 of the Criminal Code, seeking to determine if the respondent should be declared a dangerous or long-term offender following convictions for serious personal injury offences, including voyeurism and child pornography charges.

The respondent conceded most elements but disputed the likelihood of future reoffending.

The court found reasonable grounds for the assessment, citing the repetitive and protracted nature of the respondent's offending conduct across two distinct periods (1993 and 2022), which involved similar victims and abuse of trust.

The application for assessment was granted.

This is a sentencing decision for Iourii Starostin, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the death of his 87-year-old stepfather.

The offender, highly intoxicated at the time, brutally beat the victim.

The court considered the Crown's request for 12-14 years and the defence's request for 8 years.

Aggravating factors included the vulnerability of the victim, the brutality of the attack, and the offender's failure to address his long-standing alcohol use disorder despite previous convictions.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court sentenced the offender to 11 years imprisonment, with 3 years credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 8 years remaining to be served.

A DNA order and a lifetime s. 109 order were also imposed.

Michael Roberts sought certiorari to quash his committal for first-degree murder, arguing the preliminary inquiry judge erred by finding evidence of planning and deliberation where none existed, and requested committal for second-degree murder instead.

The Superior Court reviewed the preliminary inquiry judge's decision for jurisdictional error, applying the "scintilla of evidence" test.

The court found that the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the applicant's actions before and after the shooting, was sufficient to support a reasonable inference of planning and deliberation, even if other inferences were possible.

The application for certiorari was dismissed, upholding the committal for first-degree murder.

The Crown appealed a lower court's decision to stay criminal proceedings against the respondent, Herbert Meawasige, due to an alleged violation of his section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The application judge had found the total delay of 18 months and 22 days to be unreasonable.

The Superior Court found that the application judge erred in her analysis of defence-attributable delay and failed to adequately consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The court re-evaluated the timeline, attributing significant periods of delay to the defence's marked inefficiency and indifference, including failure to diligently obtain disclosure and schedule pre-trials.

After deducting defence-attributable delay, the net delay fell below the Jordan ceiling.

The appeal was allowed, the stay of proceedings was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The applicants, two hospital security guards, sought certiorari to quash their committal for trial on charges of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death.

The charges arose from an incident where a patient died following a physical altercation and restraint by the guards.

The reviewing judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence for the essential elements of the offences.

Upon review, the court concluded there was no evidence establishing the objective foreseeability of non-trivial bodily harm for manslaughter, nor any evidence of wanton or reckless disregard for life for criminal negligence.

The application was granted and the committal orders were quashed.

E.A.V. pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and sexual interference against his 12-year-old stepdaughter, who subsequently became pregnant and gave birth.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including a gross breach of trust, the victim's young age and lack of sexual education, the progressive severity and prolonged period of the assaults, the lack of birth control leading to pregnancy, the religious context, the abuse occurring in the victim's home, frequent threats and humiliation, and the victim's increased vulnerability due to pandemic lockdowns.

The profound physical, emotional, and intergenerational impact on the victim and her family was also highlighted.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea (though attenuated by the overwhelming evidence), the offender's own history of childhood abuse, his rehabilitation potential (sobriety, employment), collateral immigration consequences (likely deportation), and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody due to jail lockdowns.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles.

E.A.V. was sentenced to 18.5 years in custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and various ancillary orders were imposed.

This criminal trial concerned the charge of reckless discharge of a firearm against the accused, who had already pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

The incident occurred in a busy mall where the accused returned fire after another individual (Shooter 1) discharged a handgun in his direction.

The central issue was whether the accused's actions constituted lawful self-defence under Section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the accused reasonably believed force was being used against him and acted with the purpose of self-defence, his response was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The judge emphasized that the accused had other options, such as seeking cover, and that his act of firing into a crowded mall recklessly escalated the risk to numerous innocent bystanders, which does not align with community norms.

Consequently, the Crown successfully disproved self-defence, and the accused was found guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm.

The two offenders were convicted of firearms offences after a loaded restricted firearm with an extended magazine was found in the vehicle they were occupying, shortly after an exchange of gunfire with another vehicle.

The Crown sought 6 years for the passenger and 2 years less a day for the driver, while the defence sought 30 months and 12 months respectively.

The court sentenced the passenger to 40 months and the driver to 18 months, finding their moral blameworthiness differed significantly.

The court granted credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest but declined to grant additional credit for the Covid-19 pandemic due to a lack of specific evidence regarding its impact on the offenders' incarceration.

The three accused were charged with firearms offences after police located a loaded restricted firearm in a vehicle they occupied.

The police were investigating reports of gunshots and detained the vehicle.

The court dismissed the Crown's application to admit a police officer's preliminary inquiry evidence due to insufficient proof of his medical inability to testify.

The court found the investigative detention and pat-down searches lawful, but held that the subsequent search of the vehicle violated section 8 of the Charter because the searching officer did not testify to his subjective grounds.

However, the court declined to exclude the firearm under section 24(2).

Ultimately, the passenger who hid the firearm was convicted of possession offences, the driver was convicted of occupying a vehicle with a firearm, and the other passenger was acquitted of all charges.

The defendant, Cameron McCaw, was sentenced for sexually assaulting K.B. while she was passed out from alcohol intoxication.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the age gap, and the unprotected vaginal intercourse, and mitigating factors such as the defendant's lack of criminal record, efforts at rehabilitation, and genuine remorse.

The Crown sought a four-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought one year.

The court imposed a sentence of 40 months' imprisonment, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a mandatory DNA order, and a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after having intercourse with his roommate's girlfriend while she was passed out on a couch.

The accused raised the defence of automatism, arguing he was in a state of extreme intoxication from consuming alcohol, marijuana, and GHB.

The court found the complainant was incapable of consenting and did not consent.

The court rejected the accused's evidence that he consumed GHB, finding he was not extremely intoxicated and therefore not in a state of automatism.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sought to raise the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism.

He brought an application seeking an order that s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which bars this defence for general intent offences involving violence, is of no force and effect.

The court held that it was bound by a prior Superior Court decision that had declared s. 33.1 unconstitutional pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act.

In the alternative, the court found that s. 33.1 violates ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and is not saved by s. 1.

The application was granted, allowing the accused to advance the defence at trial.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography between April 29, 2012 and January 14, 2014.

Police discovered tens of thousands of images on seven seized devices.

The defendant had a significant collection spanning a broad range of depravity, including images of very young children and violent sexual acts.

The Crown sought 12 months imprisonment plus maximum probation.

The defence sought the mandatory minimum of 90 days with intermittent service.

The court imposed 90 days intermittent imprisonment followed by three years probation with extensive conditions, finding the defendant's unique neuropsychological circumstances—including severe traumatic brain injury from childhood, borderline intellectual functioning, and profound social isolation—warranted departure from the typical sentencing range despite aggravating factors in the offence itself.