Paul Lewandowski

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 S. Four counts were withdrawn by the Crown.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.

The appellant, who held himself out as a healer, appealed his convictions on five counts of sexual assault against adult female patients.

He argued the trial judge erred in allowing the cross-count application of similar act evidence and in his approach to the issue of consent regarding one complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's admission of the similar act evidence to establish the actus reus, nor in his conclusion that the complainant did not subjectively consent and that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

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.

Kaitlyn Gougoula, facing serious charges including conspiracy to commit murder, aggravated assault, and confinement, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed her release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that despite a proposed plan of house arrest with her grandparents as sureties, Gougoula's history of impulsivity, severe drug addiction, escalating violence, and inability to be controlled by family indicated a substantial likelihood of re-offending and interfering with the administration of justice.

The extreme gravity and deliberate nature of the alleged torture, coupled with the strong Crown case and potential lengthy imprisonment, necessitated detention to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for judicial interim release was denied.

J.M. was convicted after trial on twenty-four counts of domestic abuse targeting his spouse and children between 1963 and 2015.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and comparable jurisprudence.

Despite the Crown seeking 12 years imprisonment, the court imposed a global sentence of 23 months and 27 days, to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, followed by three years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, SOIRA order, and no-contact orders.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging the offender's age, first-time offender status, and low risk of re-offending.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings or a stay of dangerous/long-term offender proceedings, alleging that the Ottawa Police Service's inadequate investigation, failure to gather and preserve evidence, and alleged destruction of evidence violated his s. 7 (right to full answer and defence, fair trial) and s. 11(b) (right to trial without delay) Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding no Charter breach, as the applicant had access to other probative evidence for his defence, and the alleged police misconduct did not meet the high threshold for an abuse of process or actual prejudice to a fair trial.

The court also declined to conduct a s. 11(b) analysis without proper submissions on delay components.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual touching, and invitation to sexual touching involving a minor, C.F., and one count of assault on R.F. The court applied the R. v. W.D. credibility framework, finding the complainant C.F.'s testimony credible due to its detail and consistency, supported by admissions made by the accused to R.F. The accused's denials were deemed not credible and inconsistent with other evidence.

The court was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the offences occurred.

Historic prosecution arising from decades of alleged spousal abuse, child abuse, threats, indecent assaults, and related misconduct within a family home.

The court conducted a detailed credibility and reliability assessment in light of very long reporting delay, memory frailties, family discussions, and partial corroboration through a mixed police statement by the accused.

Applying principles governing delayed disclosure, credibility, time particularization, and sexualized force, the court convicted on most assault, threat, indecent assault, and mischief counts, but acquitted on several counts where reasonable doubt remained, including the buggery count, one belt-strapping count, the firearm-pointing count, and one assault-with-weapon count.

The accused, Curtis Rading, pleaded guilty to four offences: break and enter of a dwelling house and sexual assault, robbery, uttering threats to cause bodily harm, and a second sexual assault, all committed against an 84-year-old neighbour.

The court considered aggravating factors including the planned nature of the home invasion and sexual assault, the victim's vulnerability, and the accused's criminal record and substance abuse issues.

Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas, the accused's age, and his desire for treatment.

The primary sentencing objectives were protection of society, denunciation, and general and specific deterrence.

The court rejected the defence's request for a total sentence of approximately five years as too low and imposed a total custodial sentence of nine years, less 1235 days of pre-sentence custody credit, leaving approximately 5.62 years to serve.

Concurrent sentences were imposed for the other charges.

Mandatory corollary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration, and a non-communication order.

The accused brought a defence application to sever counts on a multi-complainant indictment involving historical sexual allegations, a partner assault allegation, and more recent sexual allegations.

Applying the severance factors, the court held the applicant had established on a balance of probabilities that the interests of justice warranted severance.

The court found the factual nexus between the counts was not compelling at this stage, the risk of prejudice and cross-pollination on credibility assessments favoured severance, and similar fact admissibility was not sufficiently clear to outweigh those concerns.

The counts involving the historical allegations were severed from the counts involving the more recent allegations.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual touching against four young children over a 31-year period, and to possession of and making available child pornography involving over 500,000 images and 25,000 videos.

The Crown sought 13 years imprisonment while the defence sought under 5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 9 years imprisonment, less presentence custody, with ancillary orders including DNA sampling, SOIRA registration, firearms prohibition, and lifetime restrictions on contact with minors and attendance at certain locations.

The court applied sentencing principles emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for offences involving abuse of children under 18 years of age.

The defendant was charged with 14 counts arising from a two-month period of criminal conduct directed at his former intimate partner and her three children, including attempted murder, uttering death threats, criminal harassment, and breach of probation.

The defendant pleaded guilty to nine counts and was tried on the remaining five.

He was acquitted of three counts of attempted murder but convicted of attempted possession of a prohibited firearm.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application under section 753 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation based on a pattern of repetitive criminal harassment involving intimate partners spanning approximately 25 years across two countries.

The court imposed a four-year sentence for criminal harassment followed by a maximum ten-year long-term supervision order, finding that this lesser measure would adequately protect the public, rather than imposing an indeterminate sentence.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the accused, who pled guilty to multiple domestic violence offences including criminal harassment, forcible confinement, and assault with a weapon against his former girlfriend.

The accused had a lengthy history of violence against intimate partners and multiple mental health diagnoses.

The court found that the accused met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, noting a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences.

The court concluded that the risk could not be adequately managed in the community and imposed an indeterminate sentence.