Paul Lewandowski

The accused, a former Canadian Senator, was charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment of his executive assistant between September 2013 and March 2014.

The complainant alleged repeated unwanted sexual touching at the office and during work trips, as well as controlling and threatening conduct that caused her to fear for her psychological safety.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial involved extensive testimony from the complainant, the accused, his wife, and corroborating witnesses.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including contradictions with witness testimony and inconsistencies regarding key events.

The accused's evidence was found to be straightforward and credible.

The court applied the W.D. framework and found that the evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding all counts.

S.K. was convicted of assaulting a child, H.J.P., and sentenced to a 3-month suspended sentence with 18 months’ probation and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The court considered the context of domestic violence, the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and the applicability of Supreme Court guidance in Friesen and Marchand.

The Crown’s request for a common law peace bond was denied due to insufficient evidence of ongoing risk.

The decision emphasizes individualized sentencing and the heightened seriousness of offences against children.

The applicant, convicted of sexual offences against two young girls and sentenced to seven years, sought bail pending appeal of his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The court determined that the grounds of appeal regarding inadvertent collusion, similar fact evidence admissibility, and the sentencing judge's analysis of health circumstances were very weak, not clearly surpassing the 'not frivolous' criterion.

The balance of the competing interests of enforceability (seriousness of the crime) and reviewability (weakness of appeal grounds) favoured enforceability, concluding that a reasonable member of the public would lose confidence in the administration of justice if the applicant were released.

The accused, S.K., faced twenty-five criminal charges, including assault, unlawful confinement, sexual touching, and sexual assault, involving three child complainants (H.E.P., H.J.P., and B.A.K.).

The trial involved assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainants' and the accused's evidence, particularly given the passage of time and the complainants' young ages at the time of the alleged events.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for evaluating competing versions of events and considered the impact of recovered memories and inter-complainant discussions on reliability.

The accused was found guilty on one count of assault (count #16, an open palm slap to H.J.P.'s face) and acquitted on all remaining twenty-four counts due to reasonable doubt arising from inconsistencies and concerns about the reliability of the complainants' recollections.

The appellant, Augustine Mulimbwa, appealed his conviction for impaired care and control of a conveyance.

He argued that the trial was unfair due to the judge's handling of his self-representation, the validity of his admission of impairment, and the failure to consider the impact of involuntary cocaine ingestion on mens rea and care and control.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge provided adequate assistance to the self-represented accused, the admission of impairment by voluntarily consumed cannabis was valid, and the defence regarding involuntary cocaine ingestion lacked an air of reality as voluntary cannabis consumption established the necessary mens rea.

The court concluded that the trial judge properly considered the totality of the evidence of impairment.

Miguel Ngabirano pleaded guilty to kidnapping, robbery, and use of an imitation firearm.

The court considered general sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the collateral immigration consequences of a custodial sentence.

The Crown sought 15 months custody, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or a shorter custodial term.

The court imposed a sentence of three months custody followed by 21 months less a day conditional sentence and three years probation, specifically tailoring the custodial portion to be less than six months to preserve the offender's right to appeal a potential removal order to Burundi, an unstable country.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit similar fact evidence against the accused, Mohamad Barkhadle, who is charged with first-degree murder involving strangulation during a sexual assault.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of three prior incidents where Mr. Barkhadle allegedly choked women in sexual circumstances.

The court analyzed the admissibility of this evidence, focusing on its relevance to the nature of the actus reus, motive, and identification.

The court found a "striking similarity" in Mr. Barkhadle's "peculiar and distinctive method" of using a choke hold to overcome resistance to sexual activity, deeming it a "signature." Balancing the high probative value against the potential for moral and reasoning prejudice, the court ruled the similar fact evidence admissible.

The defendant, Brian Dawson, challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence of six months jail for communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services of a person under 18 years, contrary to section 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter.

The court reviewed the facts of the offence, Dawson's personal circumstances including significant mental health issues, and relevant jurisprudence, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Friesen.

The court found that while incarceration would be difficult for Dawson, the mandatory minimum sentence was not grossly disproportionate in his circumstances or in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical cases, upholding the constitutionality of the provision.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of the accused's videotaped statement to police following his arrest for robbery and theft of a motor vehicle.

The defence conceded the first two-thirds of the interview were voluntary but argued the final portion was inadmissible because the interviewing officer offered a quid pro quo inducement to return the accused to his cell if he provided information about a gun.

The court found that the officer's statements did not amount to a clear inducement and did not overcome the accused's free will.

The court concluded the statements were voluntary and ruled the entire interview admissible.

The accused was charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery arising from a bitcoin transaction.

The complainant alleged that the accused set him up to be robbed by an unknown third party.

The court applied the W.(D) framework to assess credibility and accepted the accused's evidence that he was not involved in the robbery.

The court also found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, leaving a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The appellant, a driving instructor, appealed his conviction for sexual assault following a guilty plea, arguing the plea was not voluntary or unequivocal because he did not understand the charges due to language difficulties.

The court heard fresh evidence from the appellant, his friend who acted as an interpreter, and his former trial counsel.

The court rejected the appellant's evidence, finding that he understood the allegations and the consequences of his plea, and that his plea was both voluntary and unequivocal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, J.R., faced 29 criminal counts, including assault, sexual assault, threats, confinement, and probation breaches, arising from a six-month relationship with the complainant, Ms. S. Four counts were withdrawn by the Crown.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of Ms. S's narrative, particularly given inconsistencies and her substance use.

The court dismissed several sexual assault and property interference counts due to lack of proof of bodily harm, intent, or factual inconsistencies.

However, the court found J.R. guilty on multiple counts of assault, sexual assault (where fear vitiated consent), confinement, threats, and breach of probation, accepting the core of Ms. S's testimony despite peripheral inconsistencies.

A young person charged with two counts of sexual assault under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The complainant alleged sexual assault on March 17, 2017, and during summer 2017 at a Tim Hortons restaurant.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming consensual sexual activity on the first occasion and denying any sexual contact on the second occasion.

The trial judge found the accused's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the complainant's evidence, and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing credibility based on logic, human experience, and common sense, and rejects stereotypical assumptions about how sexual assault victims should behave.

The Crown applied to have Jacques Rouschop declared a dangerous offender and sought an indeterminate sentence.

Rouschop, convicted of multiple sexual and violent offenses, conceded he met the criteria for a dangerous offender but argued for a lesser sentence with a Long Term Supervision Order.

The court, considering psychiatric evidence of high reoffending risk due to Antisocial and Narcissistic Personality Disorders and severe psychopathy, and Rouschop's continued violent and sexual conduct in custody, found no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

The defendant, designated a dangerous offender, faced charges including criminal harassment and breach of orders.

The Crown brought three pre-trial applications: (i) similar fact/prior discreditable conduct evidence regarding two former domestic partners, (ii) video link testimony for two witnesses residing in the United States, and (iii) admission of a deceased witness's videotaped statement under the hearsay exception.

The court granted the similar fact application regarding one partner (Ms. Landrio) but dismissed it for the other (Ms. MacLean), granted the video link testimony application for both witnesses, and granted the hearsay application for the deceased witness's statement.

The offender was convicted by a jury of ten counts of weapons trafficking, ten counts of making a false report, and one count of public mischief.

He acted as a straw purchaser, buying ten handguns for his drug dealer in exchange for cocaine, and later falsely reported them stolen.

The Crown sought 5-6 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court sentenced the offender to 4 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for weapons trafficking, while considering his lack of prior record and rehabilitation efforts as mitigating factors.

During a dangerous offender hearing, the Crown sought to introduce new evidence alleging the offender sexually touched and choked two fellow inmates.

The defence opposed the admission, citing choice of counsel conflicts, delay, and lack of advance notice.

The court granted the Crown's request, ordering a voir dire with independent counsel for the offender to determine if the new allegations could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offenders were found guilty of recruiting two minors for the purpose of exploitation and advertising sexual services.

At sentencing, they challenged the constitutionality of the five-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 279.011 of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the s. 7 overbreadth challenge but found that the mandatory minimum violated s. 12 as it was grossly disproportionate to the offenders' lower level of moral blameworthiness, and it could not be saved under s. 1.

The mandatory minimum was struck down, and the offenders were sentenced to 18 months and 11 months respectively.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his wife during their marriage.

The Crown's case relied on a single incident from 2002.

The court applied the W.D. framework to assess credibility, finding the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and a strong motive to fabricate arising from a bitter family court dispute over child custody and access.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant, Kaitlyn Gougoula, pleaded guilty to multiple charges including conspiracy to commit murder, attempt to render the victim insensible by choking, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and breaches of probation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The charges stemmed from a severe and prolonged torture of the victim, Shawn Theobald-Lewertoff, involving duct-taping, burning, cutting, stabbing with a dirty needle, and physical assault, motivated by an accusation of theft and being a police informant.

The court considered a joint sentencing submission of 71 months global sentence, minus time served, taking into account aggravating factors such as the defendant being on probation, drug use during the crime, victim vulnerability, and group mentality, balanced against mitigating factors like an early guilty plea, remorse, youth, and family support.