Peter Keen

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.

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 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 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.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the accused following his guilty plea to possession of weapons dangerous to the public peace and three counts of uttering threats.

The accused initially opposed the application but changed his position mid-hearing and consented to being declared a dangerous offender.

The court found that the accused's conduct, which began as an apparent suicide attempt but escalated into threatening behaviour toward police officers, constituted a predicate offence under the Criminal Code.

The court considered the accused's extensive criminal history including 34 prior convictions, pattern of threats, and psychiatric assessments indicating high risk of future offending.

The court declared the accused a dangerous offender and imposed a 6-year determinate sentence plus a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, both causing bodily harm.

The Crown and defence agreed that the only issue was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the motor vehicle.

The accused was found in the front seat of a vehicle that had collided with a tree.

Two other occupants were also in the vehicle.

The court found that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver and entered an acquittal on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, failure to provide a breath sample, criminal harassment, breach of undertaking, and assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to failure to provide a breath sample and breach of undertaking.

The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge.

At trial, the court found the accused guilty of assault but acquitted on the criminal harassment charge.

The court found that while the accused threw a water bottle at the complainant during a custody dispute, the subsequent confrontation at a hotel parking lot did not constitute criminal harassment directed at the complainant, as the actions were directed at third parties and the complainant had no direct knowledge of the confrontation.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the respondent, an Indigenous man convicted of sexual assault.

The respondent had a lengthy criminal record involving 18 violent offences over nearly 30 years.

The court considered Gladue factors but found the respondent's severe childhood trauma did not mitigate the high risk of future violent and sexual re-offending.

The court declared the respondent a dangerous offender based on a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and imposed an indeterminate sentence, finding that lesser measures would not adequately protect the public.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant testified that she did not consent to sexual intercourse with the accused, who was her former partner.

The accused claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence that she did not consent, finding that she repeatedly expressed her unwillingness, remained silent and passive throughout the encounter, and immediately reported the incident to her family and police.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and inconsistent, noting his admission of making false statements to police and his evasive responses during cross-examination.

DNA evidence confirmed the accused's presence.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of Frank Lawson (aka Kwandibens) after initially being charged with second-degree murder.

The incident occurred during a drinking party in a remote First Nations community when the accused, carrying a paring knife for cutting moose meat, stabbed the deceased once in the chest after being pushed to the ground.

The accused immediately expressed remorse, called emergency services, and confessed to police.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment less time served (approximately twelve months on an enhanced basis), resulting in a net sentence of five years, applying Gladue considerations regarding the accused's history of abuse, substance abuse issues, and the systemic factors affecting Aboriginal offenders in remote communities.