Raymond Woloshyn-Chick

The accused was tried for assaulting his girlfriend's young son on four counts: one count of assault by choking and three counts of common assault.

The Crown alleged the accused picked the complainant up by his neck, threw him onto a bed, forced his head into a pillow, and on separate occasions slapped and kicked the complainant.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally committed the alleged acts.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, rejected the defence evidence from the complainant's mother as unreliable, and found the Crown had proven all elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

The offender pleaded not guilty but accepted an agreed statement of fact regarding three offences: break and enter a dwelling house, sexual assault, and uttering threats to cause death.

The offender, a 20-year-old first offender with no criminal record, broke into a neighbour's home at night while intoxicated, confined and threatened the occupants, and sexually assaulted one of them.

The court imposed a four-year prison sentence less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a remaining custodial term of 43 months.

The court considered the offender's youth, remorse, rehabilitative potential, and family support as mitigating factors, but emphasized the serious and violent nature of the offences and their significant impact on the victim and her family.

The applicant sought a ruling on privilege regarding communications made during couples' therapy with a registered psychotherapist.

The Crown sought access to admissions made by the applicant to the therapist concerning an alleged sexual assault of the complainant (the applicant's spouse).

The court recognized a case-by-case privilege under the Wigmore test, finding that the communications originated in confidence, confidentiality was essential to the therapeutic relationship, the therapist-client relationship ought to be fostered, and the interests in protecting the communications outweighed the Crown's interest in accessing them.

The court granted the application, finding that the privilege would not undermine the truth-seeking function of the trial because the complainant was available to testify, the applicant had already admitted to the conduct in an affidavit, and no mandatory reporting obligation applied.

A young Black man was sentenced for possessing a loaded handgun in a Hamilton pub while intoxicated and in breach of court orders.

The court considered systemic anti-Black racism and personal disadvantages as mitigating factors affecting moral culpability, but emphasized the gravity of the offence, the aggravating circumstances of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place while intoxicated and confrontational, and the offender's extensive criminal record.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection, followed by probation with culturally appropriate programming.

This decision concerns a judicial interim release hearing for Christopher Manning, 19, who faces charges of assault with a weapon, assault, and obstruct police.

These alleged offences occurred while he was on release for two prior sets of charges, placing the burden on him to show cause for release under s. 515(6)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The defence proposed release with conditions, arguing that further detention was contrary to the interests of justice given the likelihood of a time-served sentence upon conviction and highlighting the accused's status as a member of a visible minority and potential mental health challenges under s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code.

The court, while acknowledging the importance of considering systemic factors for vulnerable populations, found the proposed release plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of re-offence, particularly due to a history of non-compliance and a lack of detailed information regarding the accused's background and effective community supports.

Consequently, the accused failed to meet the burden for release and was detained.

The applicant, Ms. Drmic, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in her provincial offences matter for careless driving.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the scheduled trial date exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that delay was attributable to issues with service, lack of judicial resources, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no evidence to support defence-attributable delay or to sufficiently explain how lack of judicial resources or the pandemic specifically caused the delay in this case, emphasizing the Crown's burden to prove reasonable steps were taken to avoid delay.

The motion for a stay was granted.