Peter Boushy

The court determined a breach allegation under s. 742.6 of the Criminal Code in relation to a conditional sentence order containing no-contact conditions with persons under 16 years of age.

On admitted facts, the court found multiple wilful and flagrant breaches without reasonable excuse and held the offender failed to rebut the presumption that the remainder of the sentence should be served in custody.

The court rejected submissions that supervision exceptions, health concerns, or delay during suspension justified continuation of the conditional sentence or credit under s. 742.6(16).

Applying the governing authorities, the court terminated the conditional sentence and ordered the unexpired portion served in jail.

A custodial no-contact order was also imposed.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Todd Snow of sexual assault, failure to comply with probation, and failure to comply with a peace bond.

The complainant alleged non-consensual vaginal intercourse, while the defendant claimed consensual oral sex.

DNA evidence linked the defendant to the complainant’s external genitalia and vaginal swabs, strongly supporting the Crown’s case.

The defendant’s prior statement denying any sexual contact was found to be fabricated to conceal guilt.

The court accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible despite her prior convictions and challenges related to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The decision highlights the importance of DNA evidence and the legal distinction between disbelief and fabrication of exculpatory statements.

The accused, J.C., was charged with assault and sexual assault against the complainant, A.T. The Crown alleged three sexual assaults in 2015 and one choking assault in 2016.

The court applied principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, including the W.(D.) analysis.

The court found material inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence regarding both the sexual assault and choking allegations, and that the accused's testimony was unshaken.

Consequently, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and found J.C. not guilty on both counts.

Zamir Simas-Mamani was convicted of choking to render the complainant incapable of resistance and sexual assault.

The court considered fundamental sentencing principles, including proportionality, gravity of the offence, offender responsibility, and the totality principle.

The assault involved repeated choking into unconsciousness, removal of clothing, and various sexual acts without a condom, lasting over an hour.

The court emphasized the brutality and inherent dangerousness of choking as a means to facilitate sexual assault, citing R. v. Lemmon and R. v. Finney.

Aggravating factors included the lack of condom use, the offender's criminal record, the victim's ongoing psychological and physical repercussions, the significant size and strength discrepancy, and the duration of the attack.

The court imposed a sentence of eight years for sexual assault and eight years concurrently for choking, with a two-year credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of six years.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration, a lifetime weapon prohibition, and a no-contact order with the victim during custody.

The defendant was found guilty of multiple fraud-related offences involving fraudulent master business agreements and attempting to cash cheques not payable to him, targeting three different banks with potential losses exceeding $400,000.

The court considered principles of specific and general deterrence and denunciation.

Aggravating factors included the lack of explanation other than greed and the defendant's failure to acknowledge guilt, despite overwhelming evidence.

Mitigating factors included no actual financial loss to the banks (though investigation costs were incurred) and the defendant's refugee status and family in Africa.

The Crown sought 3 years incarceration, while the defence sought less than 2 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 30 months incarceration, emphasizing the seriousness, planning, and greed motivating the offences, while differentiating from other cases due to the absence of financial loss and the short timeframe of the transactions.

The applicant sought the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to quash a completed criminal trial in which he had been required to represent himself after an adjournment request was denied.

The applicant argued that the denial of the adjournment and the requirement to proceed without counsel amounted to a denial of natural justice and jurisdictional error.

The court held that the trial judge’s decision to deny the adjournment was an exercise of judicial discretion within jurisdiction.

Because the merits of the case had been tried and findings were made on the essential elements of the offences, the proper remedy was an appeal rather than certiorari pursuant to s. 776 of the Criminal Code.

The application for certiorari was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed a custodial sentence imposed following convictions for mischief and two counts of breach of probation arising from conduct at a medical clinic.

The sentencing judge rejected a joint submission of time served and instead imposed an additional custodial sentence resulting in an effective six‑month term of imprisonment.

The appellate court held that joint submissions on sentence are entitled to significant deference and should only be rejected where the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court found the sentencing judge erred in principle by rejecting the joint submission without adequate justification and by imposing a sentence that was demonstrably unfit and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The appeal was allowed and the custodial sentence was reduced to time served, with the probation order remaining in force.