Peter Scrutton

The appellant, Steven Parker, appealed his sentence for making available child pornography, possession of child pornography, failing to comply with a probation order, and breaching a prohibition order.

The trial judge had imposed an eight-year sentence for making available child pornography and a concurrent six-year sentence for possession, along with concurrent two-year sentences for the breaches.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by failing to consider parity with similar sentences and by not applying the jump principle.

The Court reduced the sentence for making available child pornography to six years and for possession to four years, and adjusted pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant, a former police chief, appealed his conviction for sexual assault against a subordinate officer.

He argued the trial judge erred by rejecting defence expert evidence on document sequencing of the complainant's notebook and by misapplying the W.(D.) test when assessing credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to reject the expert evidence as unreliable and had properly applied the W.(D.) framework in finding the complainant's evidence compelling and rejecting the appellant's bare denial.

The offenders, a police officer and an employee of the Public Guardian and Trustee, were convicted by a jury of defrauding an estate of over $830,000 using a forged will.

The employee was also convicted of breach of trust by a public official.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the complexity and duration of the fraud, the significant impact on the victim, and the offenders' abuse of their positions of public trust.

Both offenders were sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

The court also issued restitution and forfeiture orders for the full amount of the fraud.

The defendant, Robert Konashewych, brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 7 rights (solicitor-client privilege) and s. 8 rights (unreasonable search and seizure) by police.

The alleged breaches arose from police taking possession of a presumptively privileged letter and other documents provided by his former spouse.

The court found a s. 7 breach due to police inaction regarding the privileged document but determined it did not warrant a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) as the consequences were minor and did not impact trial fairness.

The court also found no s. 8 breach, as the documents were voluntarily provided by a private citizen, not obtained through state search or seizure.

The application for a stay was dismissed, but the privileged letter was ruled inadmissible unless privilege was waived.

The defence sought to exclude specific evidence related to the accused's infidelity and attempts to conceal it, arguing its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value in a circumstantial evidence case involving alleged will forgery.

The Crown contended this evidence was crucial to demonstrate the accused's motive and actions to prevent discovery of the alleged fraud.

The court dismissed the defence's application, finding the evidence highly relevant to the Crown's theory and that any prejudicial effect could be adequately mitigated by proper jury instructions.

The applicants, two police officers charged with theft, obstruct justice, and perjury, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 41 months and 6 days.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including an implicit waiver by one co-accused, and delay caused by an inaccurate estimate for the preliminary inquiry.

The court also deducted 10 months as an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic backlog.

After deductions, the net delay for both applicants fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

David Ardrey, a police constable, pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining computer service (CPIC/NICHE) by conducting unauthorized queries of a victim's information, contrary to s. 342.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered aggravating factors, including abuse of trust and significant victim impact, and mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, no prior record, and significant collateral consequences.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation and community service, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, including no-contact and non-attendance conditions, but declined to impose community service, finding that a conviction was sufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for firearms offences and breaches, and his sentence.

The conviction appeal argued the trial judge failed to adequately address significant discrepancies between police officers' evidence.

The sentence appeal argued the trial judge failed to give credit for pre-sentence incarceration conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence or in the sentencing judge's discretion regarding enhanced credit for COVID-19 conditions.

This appeal concerns the application of a non-publication order under section 486.5(9) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario analyzed the Dagenais/Mentuck/Sherman Estate test for discretionary publication bans, balancing privacy interests against the open court principle.

The court confirmed that the mandatory publication ban under section 486.5(9) applies to information related to the application for the ban itself, and amended the lower court's order to explicitly include this mandatory ban.

Michael Mills appealed a six-month conditional sentence for fraud under $5,000, seeking a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by requiring an "exceptionality" threshold for a discharge under s. 730 of the Criminal Code.

Considering Mills' lack of prior record, guilty plea, remorse, restitution, minimal financial gain, and significant impact on employability due to the conviction, the Court determined an absolute discharge was appropriate and in the public interest, allowing the appeal and imposing the discharge.

Jake Grant, a Niagara Regional Police Service sergeant, pleaded guilty to threatening Bruce Love, a mentally ill individual, in a Subway restaurant.

The incident occurred in 2017, and the case had a protracted procedural history, including an overturned stay of proceedings.

The Crown sought a conviction and fine, while the defence requested an absolute discharge, citing Mr. Grant's exemplary service record and collateral consequences related to travel.

The court found Mr. Grant's conduct inexcusable, particularly given his position and the victim's vulnerability.

The judge rejected an absolute discharge as contrary to public interest and found the collateral consequences argument speculative.

A conditional discharge with two years probation and 120 hours of community service focused on services for mentally challenged individuals was imposed, balancing denunciation and deterrence with Mr. Grant's otherwise exceptional character.

The offender, a police officer, was sentenced for multiple offences including breach of trust, unauthorized use of a computer, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, and trafficking by offer.

The offences involved accessing confidential police databases for unauthorized purposes, planning to rob a fictional drug warehouse, stealing a police shotgun, and offering to traffic cocaine.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe breach of public trust.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 7.5 years imprisonment.

The accused, a police officer, was found guilty of multiple offences including unauthorized use of a computer, breach of trust, possessing a stolen firearm, and drug trafficking following an undercover police corruption investigation.

The accused brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings, arguing he was entrapped by undercover officers and that the investigation amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that the accused was entrapped into committing theft and uttering forged documents relating to a fabricated confidential informant report, as the police induced the offences without reasonable suspicion, and stayed those counts.

However, the court dismissed the entrapment application for the remaining offences, finding that reasonable suspicion existed and the accused was not induced, but rather created his own opportunities to commit the crimes.

The court also declined to grant a general stay for abuse of process.

The accused, a police officer, was targeted in an undercover corruption investigation.

He was charged with 14 offences arising from his interactions with an undercover officer posing as his partner and another undercover officer posing as a mid-level organized crime figure.

The court found the accused guilty of theft and uttering forged documents for keeping money intended for a fictitious confidential informant and forging the receipt.

He was also found guilty of unauthorized use of a computer and breach of trust for running licence plates for personal reasons and to assist the undercover drug dealer.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a firearm obtained by crime and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose after he stole a police shotgun in preparation for robbing a drug warehouse.

However, he was acquitted of attempted robbery because his extensive planning had not progressed beyond mere preparation.

He was also convicted of trafficking cocaine by offer and trafficking steroids to the undercover officer.

Mr. Thakur pleaded guilty to one count of theft under $5,000.

The offence involved him sharing $5,000 of DRPS money, obtained by a co-accused police officer (Husen Aswat) through a sting operation, to purchase a fishing boat.

The Crown sought a conditional discharge with probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court considered Mr. Thakur's exemplary career as a police officer, his undiagnosed PTSD and depression at the time of the offence, and the significant collateral consequences he suffered, including the loss of his career and public stigma.

Despite his status as a police officer being an aggravating factor, the court found that the unique circumstances, including his mental health and the profound impact of the proceedings, warranted an absolute discharge, concluding that probation would serve no meaningful purpose and offend the principle of proportionality.

The Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, through Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan, brought the fifth application to unseal search warrants, production orders, and Informations to Obtain (ITOs) in the ongoing investigation into the double murder of Honey and Barry Sherman.

The police agreed to unseal the first four ITOs with redactions, citing that they were at an early stage and of a more general nature.

The applicant challenged the redactions as overly cautious.

The court partially granted the application, unsealing certain medical and background information while maintaining redactions for holdback and hallmark information, potential persons of interest, motive, Apotex business information, and estate information.

The remaining eight ITOs were kept fully sealed as they were of a more focused nature and disclosure would compromise the ongoing investigation.

The accused, a police sergeant, was charged with theft over $5,000 and breach of trust after money and jewellery seized during a robbery investigation went missing from a temporary storage locker.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the accused's failure to follow property storage directives and his estranged wife's discovery of a police evidence bag containing cash under his bed.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the accused's guilt was the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, noting widespread non-compliance with property directives at the bureau and discrepancies in the cash found by the wife.

The accused was acquitted.

The offender, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of assault for striking a young Black man in the face with a metal pipe while the victim was injured and seeking help.

The court emphasized the need for denunciation and general deterrence, noting the breach of public trust and the racialized context of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to 9 months in jail, followed by 12 months of probation, along with DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders.

Prior to the offender's sentencing, the Crown sought to file a community impact statement from the Black Action Defence Committee.

The defence objected to portions of the statement, arguing they exceeded the permissible scope under section 722.2 of the Criminal Code, and sought redactions.

The court held that while much of the statement provided necessary context regarding the impact of the offence on the Black community, two specific portions were irrelevant or inflammatory and required redaction.

The court otherwise declined to redact the statement, noting it would disregard any impermissible content.

The applicant, having been acquitted of aggravated assault but convicted of the lesser included offence of simple assault, applied to re-open the trial before sentencing.

The applicant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to find him guilty of simple assault, asserting that aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code does not contain a lesser included offence of assault.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to re-open the trial, emphasizing the principle of finality and noting the argument should have been raised during closing submissions.

The court also rejected the substantive argument, affirming that simple assault is a lesser included offence of aggravated assault.