Phyllis Castiglione

The defendant, Robert Sharp, was tried for sexual assault and three breaches of release orders.

The court found him guilty of sexual assault and two breaches.

The case involved assessing the reliability of identification evidence, particularly given the complainant's impaired vision and intoxication, and the absence of consent where the complainant was asleep.

The court also addressed the admissibility of the accused's post-act utterances and the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

L.F. pleaded guilty to five counts of historical offences: indecently assaulting four young females between 1977-1983, and assaulting a young male in 1992-1993, while in positions of trust as an elementary teacher and librarian.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court considered the significant gravity of the offences, the profound harm to the victims as detailed in their victim impact statements, and the offender's breach of trust.

Mitigating factors included the offender's age (75), lack of prior criminal record, genuine remorse, and a guilty plea that spared the victims from testifying about traumatic historical events.

The court determined that a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by three years of probation, would adequately meet the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, given the unique circumstances of the case.

Ancillary orders included a weapons prohibition, DNA order, and Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance.

P.V.T. was convicted of sexual assault on his wife and uttering death threats.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the abuse of authority, the victim's vulnerability, repeated incidents, and significant impact on the victim, balanced against mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record and health issues.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence, finding that the sexual assault stemmed from a generalized attitude towards women.

A global sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment was imposed, with 4 years for sexual assault and 6 months consecutive for uttering threats.

Mandatory orders for DNA registration, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order were also made, along with a no-contact order with the victim during the custodial period.

The defendant applied under s. 278.92(1) of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of text messages between the complainant and her son that were disclosed in family law proceedings.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and uttering death threats.

The defence argued the messages indicated the complainant acknowledged the charges were false but feared prosecution if she recanted.

The Crown and complainant's counsel opposed admission, arguing the inference was speculative and the messages lacked significant probative value.

The court found the messages were relevant to the central issue of the complainant's credibility and had significant probative value.

The court admitted the messages but restricted cross-examination to the text message portion of the affidavit to prevent collateral attacks on the complainant's credibility regarding family law matters.

A.C. was charged with two counts of sexual assault and brought an application for a directed verdict, arguing that the Crown's evidence was manifestly unreliable.

The Crown contended that the evidence, if believed, could support guilty verdicts and that the court should not assess reliability or credibility at this stage.

The court, bound by R. v. Tomlinson, dismissed the application, holding that where direct evidence is presented on each essential element of the offence, the reliability and credibility assessment is for the trier of fact, not the judge on a directed verdict application.

The accused, A.C., brought an application under section 278.92 of the Criminal Code to admit emails exchanged with the complainant for cross-examination in a sexual assault trial.

The emails concerned the breakdown of their marriage, separation agreement negotiations, and the complainant's sentiments.

The court found the emails to be "records" and admissible for the limited purpose of cross-examining the complainant on issues of animus and reliability, provided they are used intelligently and do not infer "twin myths" or delve into irrelevant matters.

The court emphasized the importance of context and a holistic review of the emails.

The accused sought to cross-examine the complainant at trial using emails exchanged between them regarding their marriage breakdown and separation agreement.

The Crown argued the emails were 'records' under section 278.1 of the Criminal Code, requiring a hearing under section 278.92.

The court found that the emails contained personal information with a reasonable expectation of privacy, thus constituting records.

The court also held that the recent amendments to section 278.1 were procedural in nature and operated retrospectively, applying to the accused's trial despite the charges predating the amendments.

The accused, charged with two counts of sexual assault, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of prior discussions with the complainant regarding 'rough sex' and a 'rape fantasy', as well as her characterization of the incident as a 'grey area'.

The Crown opposed, arguing the evidence engaged the twin myths and the application lacked sufficient detail.

The court found the application material sufficient, as the proposed evidence came from the complainant's own statements to police and at the preliminary inquiry.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, finding its probative value for full answer and defence outweighed prejudicial effects, provided cross-examination is strictly limited to the specific statements and not used to invoke the twin myths.

The defendant, A.C., brought an application challenging the constitutionality of subsections 278.94(2) and 278.94(3) of the Criminal Code, arguing they violated sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The challenge asserted infringements on the right to a fair trial, against self-incrimination, and prosecutorial independence due to the complainant's right to appear and make submissions at admissibility hearings for sexual activity evidence.

The court applied the Mills/Darrach approach for constitutional challenges to legislation and dismissed the application, finding no Charter breach.

The court clarified that the complainant's involvement is limited to providing perspective on the admissibility of evidence, combating myths and stereotypes, and does not transform the complainant into a second prosecutor or infringe on the accused's fundamental rights.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the defendant's prior discreditable conduct towards the complainant in a sexual assault trial.

The proposed evidence included incidents of shirt-pulling, urinating on the complainant, and taking non-consensual photos.

The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect test, finding that evidence must have a "real connection" to the charges.

The application was partially granted, allowing admission of two specific shirt-pulling incidents and the non-consensual photo-taking, as these demonstrated motive or animus and disrespect for the complainant's sexual integrity.

Other general shirt-pulling incidents and the urinating incidents were denied due to insufficient probative value and high prejudicial effect.

The accused, a Muay Thai boxing coach, was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against a 14-year-old student.

The sexual interference occurred on a flight when the accused placed his hand underneath the victim's shorts and cupped her buttocks while she slept.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent custodial sentence, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the breach of trust, the grooming behaviour that preceded the offence, and the significant psychological impact on the victim.

The court also imposed a two-year probation with restrictive conditions, a 10-year SOIRA order, a 5-year section 161 prohibition order, and a DNA order.

The accused, a Muay Thai boxing coach, was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual interference under section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The allegations arose from an incident on a return flight from training in Thailand, where the complainant, a 14-year-old student, alleged that the accused touched her buttocks while she was sleeping on his lap.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed to have been asleep.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's testimony as not credible.

The court also found a pattern of boundary violations by the accused in his relationship with the complainant, including inappropriate physical contact and intimate gestures.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an alleged touching of a person under 16 years of age that occurred on an international flight from South Korea to Toronto.

The defence applied to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that because the flight terminated in Peel Region, the charges should have been laid there and heard in Brampton rather than Newmarket.

The court dismissed the application, finding that section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code deems offences committed aboard aircraft terminating in Canada to have been committed in Canada, permitting prosecution in any territorial division.

The court further found that Newmarket was the most convenient forum given that the investigation was conducted by York Regional Police, the complainant and key witnesses resided in York Region, and the accused lived in North York.

Anna Fontana was found guilty of fraud over $5,000 and theft by conversion.

The fraud involved a $150,000 loan from an elderly friend, Edda Marie Favretto-Post, intended for a restaurant but used for personal expenses and gambling.

Only $12,000 was repaid.

The Crown sought three years imprisonment and restitution, while the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, including nine months of house arrest, a restitution order of $150,000, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $150,000, with the expectation that the family residence might need to be sold to satisfy the restitution.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and reparation, noting the breach of friendship and the victim's vulnerability.

The applicants, John Jansen and Britaney Hall, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 39 months and 13 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court deducted defence-attributable delays, including Jansen's explicit waiver of 2.5 months and Hall's 6-month delay due to a certiorari application and changes in preliminary hearing instructions.

After accounting for discrete unexpected events, the net delay for Jansen was approximately 35 months and for Hall approximately 27.5 months.

The court found the case to be moderately complex and applied the Jordan transitional exception, concluding that the Crown's reliance on the previous R. v. Morin framework was reasonable.

Both applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 and theft by conversion after borrowing $150,000 from an acquaintance under the pretense of opening a restaurant.

Instead of using the funds for the business, the accused spent the money on personal expenses, a luxury vehicle, and gambling, eventually declaring bankruptcy.

The court found that while the initial receipt of the funds may have been innocent, the accused's subsequent use of the money for gambling and personal expenses with the knowledge that it put the lender's pecuniary interests at risk constituted dishonest conduct and theft by conversion.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to six charges of voyeurism, mischief, and unlawfully in a dwelling house.

The offences involved the surreptitious videotaping and photographing of multiple female victims in various settings, including public places, workplaces, and private residences.

The accused had a prior conviction for voyeurism in 2011 and was assessed as a moderate risk for sexual recidivism.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence, rejecting a conditional sentence despite defence submissions, emphasizing the need for denunciation, specific deterrence, and general deterrence.

The court also imposed a three-year probation order with strict conditions, including no contact with victims, restrictions on electronic devices, and mandatory participation in treatment programs.

The accused pleaded guilty to six charges of voyeurism, mischief, and unlawfully in a dwelling house.

The offences involved the surreptitious videotaping and photographing of multiple victims, including coworkers, a family friend, and a sister-in-law, in various states of undress.

The accused had a prior conviction for voyeurism in 2011 and had received treatment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, yet resumed voyeuristic behaviour within a month of his probation ending.

A forensic psychiatric assessment found the accused to be at moderate risk for sexual recidivism.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months, less six months credit for pre-trial custody and stringent bail conditions, resulting in 12 months to be served.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite defence submissions, finding that the safety of the community could not be assured and that denunciation and specific deterrence required incarceration.

The defendant was charged with assault on a police officer causing bodily harm and threatening after an altercation at a bar in Richmond Hill.

Police officers and liquor inspectors attended the premises to conduct compliance inspections.

The defendant was approached on the dance floor and led to a quieter area where he was asked for identification.

The defendant became agitated and allegedly head-butted the officer, causing injury to the officer's mouth and teeth.

The defendant was arrested and subsequently made threatening statements.

The court found the defendant not guilty of both charges, determining that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was dealing with a police officer, and that the defendant's actions constituted lawful self-defence against an unlawful assault by the officer.

The accused pleaded guilty to five counts involving the sexual exploitation of a minor: invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, possession of child pornography, making available sexually explicit material to a child, and luring a child.

Over a three-week period, the 30-year-old accused engaged in online contact with a 15-year-old victim, misrepresenting his age, coercing her to create explicit images and videos, and ultimately forcing her to perform oral sex.

A search of his electronic devices revealed 76 images of child pornography and 26 images of child nudity.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years imprisonment with enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, along with DNA, SOIRA, and prohibition orders.