Peter Keen

The offender, Joshua Drumond, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation to the death of Jason Brown.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentencing, noting that while the circumstances of the victim's death were vicious, there were significant triable issues and the guilty plea was highly mitigating.

Justice Conlan sentenced the offender to eight years of imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 2,224 days.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition and a mandatory DNA order.

The Crown applied to have the young person sentenced as an adult after she pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to murder, uttering threats, and breaching a detention order.

The young person was 16 years old when she repeatedly lied to police to protect the perpetrators of a brutal murder and dismemberment.

The court found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, noting the young person's vulnerability, mental health struggles, and adolescent immaturity at the time of the offence.

The application for an adult sentence was dismissed, and the young person was sentenced to 18 months of secure custody followed by 9 months of supervision, taking into account 19.5 months of pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Rebecca Brown, was sentenced for multiple drug trafficking offences (fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine), firearm possession, flight from police, and breaching various court orders.

The court considered aggravating factors including her extensive criminal history, the serious nature of the offences involving dangerous narcotics and a firearm, and multiple breaches of court orders.

Mitigating factors included her guilty pleas, lengthy history of addiction, and serious diagnosed mental health issues (schizophrenia, severe depression).

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less 772 days pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 1,783 days (approx. 4.88 years).

Ancillary orders included lifetime and 10-year firearms prohibitions, a secondary DNA order, and a 3-year driving prohibition.

The defendant, Adnan Alex Refaeh, was convicted by a jury of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident where bodily harm was caused.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 30-36 months, while the Defence requested a conditional sentence or a short intermittent jail term.

The court found that Refaeh engaged in a prolonged high-speed street race, which was particularly dangerous given the urban setting, and that his subsequent actions were aimed at evading criminal liability, not driven by fear.

The victim, a 13-year-old at the time, suffered serious, long-lasting injuries.

Considering aggravating factors such as the prolonged street race, prior driving infractions, and post-offence cover-up attempts, alongside mitigating factors like youth, lack of prior criminal record, and remorse, the court rejected a conditional sentence.

A global sentence of 15 months imprisonment was imposed (12 months for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, 3 months consecutive for failing to remain), along with a 3-year driving prohibition, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

This decision addresses the burden of proof for the statutory defence of "reasonable excuse" under s.320.16 of the Criminal Code, following a jury conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failure to stop after an accident.

The Crown argued the accused bore the persuasive burden, while the defence contended it was merely an evidential burden, with the Crown bearing the ultimate persuasive burden.

The court ruled that the Crown bears the ultimate persuasive burden of disproving the existence of a reasonable excuse beyond a reasonable doubt, finding that Parliament intended to remove the reverse onus with the repeal of s.794(2) of the Criminal Code.

During a jury trial for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, the Crown brought a mid-trial application to determine the voluntariness of the accused's statement to police.

The defence argued the interviewing officer made implied threats or inducements that undermined the accused's right to silence.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that while the officer's comments implied a subtle quid pro quo, they were not strong enough to overbear the accused's will.

The court concluded the statement was voluntary and admissible.

The offender was convicted by a jury of three counts of sexual assault against two female colleagues in their workplace.

The offences involved unwanted sexual touching, including grabbing the victims' breasts and buttocks, and grinding against one victim.

The court found the offences were aggravated by the workplace setting, the multiplicity of incidents, and the offender's exploitation of his managerial position.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 6 months' imprisonment, to be served consecutively for each count, followed by 18 months' probation and ancillary orders.

The Crown sought to have Patrick Kanate declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence following his guilty plea to multiple offences committed while detained, including hostage-taking and assaulting a peace officer.

The court reviewed Kanate's extensive criminal history, institutional misconduct, and a psychiatric assessment which diagnosed antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders, noting his ambivalence towards changing his lifestyle.

Despite considering Gladue principles and the systemic factors impacting Indigenous offenders, the court found that Kanate presented a high and intractable risk of violent recidivism.

Concluding that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court declared him a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.

The 18-year-old Indigenous offender was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted murder after shooting his father and best friend while intoxicated.

The court accepted a joint submission for a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 18 years for the murders, and a concurrent 10-year sentence for the attempted murder.

The court heavily weighed Gladue factors, the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and expressions of remorse, balancing them against the devastating impact on the remote First Nation community.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder, attempted murder, and assault following a shooting in a remote First Nation community that left his father and friend dead.

The Crown conceded first-degree murder could not be proven, and the accused argued his advanced intoxication negated the specific intent for second-degree murder.

The court found that despite his intoxication, the accused's actions and statements demonstrated he had the requisite intent for second-degree murder.

The court also found his actions in searching for the surviving witness with a loaded firearm went beyond mere preparation, resulting in a conviction for attempted murder.

On a pre-trial Charter application in a sexual assault prosecution, the accused sought a stay of one count based on lost videotaped complainant statements and returned clothing that was never DNA tested.

The court held that the missing video statements were clearly relevant and that the Crown failed to provide an explanation sufficient to rebut unacceptable negligence, establishing a breach of the accused’s s. 7 rights.

However, the court was not prepared on the pre-trial record to determine the relevance of the lost DNA opportunity, or to find actual and irreparable prejudice justifying a stay under s. 24(1).

The application was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to revival at trial.

A lawyer pleaded guilty to 12 counts including obstruct justice, using and dealing with forged documents, forgery, and fraudulently personating another person.

The offences involved systematically defrauding multiple clients by forging court orders, settlement agreements, and affidavits of service, and misrepresenting the status of their legal cases.

The Crown sought a 6-month jail term emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12-18 months.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence, finding that the offender's undiagnosed and untreated Major Depressive Disorder contributed to the offences, that rehabilitation was a primary concern, and that collateral consequences including disbarment provided sufficient denunciation and deterrence.

The accused, an Indigenous man with significant health issues including kidney failure, pleaded guilty to defrauding an Aboriginal Health Access Centre of $59,901.70 while serving as its Treasurer.

The court considered Gladue factors, the accused's health, and the devastating impact of the fraud on the organization.

A 12-month conditional sentence was imposed, followed by two years of probation, along with orders for full restitution and a lifetime prohibition from holding positions of financial authority.

The accused, an Aboriginal first offender, pleaded guilty to three counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against his common-law spouse.

The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors, including the repetitive nature of the domestic violence and sexual assault, and mitigating factors such as the accused's youth, remorse, strong work history, and Gladue factors.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought 15 months.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of 20 months, followed by three years of probation with conditions including counselling for domestic violence and sexual offending, a no-contact order, DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration, restitution, and a weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of the complainant, his 15-year-old cousin.

The complainant testified to being intoxicated and sexually assaulted in the accused's van, experiencing pain in her genital and anal areas.

The accused denied the allegations, providing inconsistent alibi evidence and speculative explanations for the presence of his semen in the complainant's rectal cavity.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable and his explanations incredible, accepting the complainant's corroborated evidence, including DNA analysis confirming the accused's semen in her rectal cavity.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after the victim suffered a severe stab wound to the arm during a gathering.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the victim's testimony, which the court found unreliable due to his high level of intoxication and admission of giving false evidence.

Relying instead on the testimony of another witness present, the court concluded it could not exclude the reasonable possibility that the stabbing was accidental.

The accused was found not guilty.

The offender, a registered nurse, was found guilty of sexually assaulting a coworker in a remote First Nation community.

The assault had a profound psychological and financial impact on the victim, resulting in a diagnosis of PTSD.

The Crown sought a 90-day custodial sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge or suspended sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 90 days of intermittent custody, followed by one year of probation, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

The defendant was charged with trespassing contrary to section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Trespass to Property Act after being served with a notice of trespass and subsequently travelling on a road that crossed the Bergen property to access his landlocked parcel.

The Crown proved the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found that the defendant had a limited statutory right to use the road as an access road under the Road Access Act, which confers on users of access roads a temporary right to travel to and from their properties without being considered trespassers until a court order closing the road is obtained.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred on July 27, 2016 in Sioux Lookout.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who alleged that the accused forced him to perform oral sex near a church.

The court found that despite corroborating evidence of the complainant's distressed state and DNA evidence showing multiple contributors to samples, the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant credibility issues, timing inconsistencies, problematic identification evidence, and contradictions in the complainant's account.

The defendant, Connie Rose Gordon, was charged with intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to the Voyageur Inn Motel, resulting in bodily harm to Dallas Jason Bluebird, contrary to section 433(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on eyewitness identifications, threats made by the defendant, her movements before and after the fire, and the purchase of a gas can.

The defendant denied involvement, challenging the identifications and witness testimonies.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible and, based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, concluded that the defendant's guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The defendant was found guilty.