Rebecca Law

The appellant, S.S., appealed a Superior Court decision that denied him a preliminary inquiry.

S.S. was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, offences whose maximum penalties were increased after the alleged commission date but before his election.

The central issue was whether entitlement to a preliminary inquiry under s. 535 of the Criminal Code, which requires an offence punishable by 14 years or more, should be determined by the penalty at the time of the offence or at the time of the election.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the relevant maximum penalty is that which applied at the time of the offence, benefiting the accused under s. 11(i) of the Charter and s. 43(d) of the Interpretation Act.

The court also rejected the appellant's attempt to waive his Charter right to the lesser punishment to qualify for a preliminary inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed.

Sarai Lopez Iglesias, charged with first-degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown opposed, citing the strength of the case, the gravity of the offence, and concerns on primary and secondary grounds.

The applicant proposed a robust bail plan including house arrest with sureties (her mother and step-father), electronic monitoring, and a substantial pledge.

The court, while acknowledging the strong Crown case and serious nature of the charge, found that the proposed plan, particularly the full-time supervision by the mother, was sufficient to address the concerns on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, and granted bail.

The accused was charged with human trafficking, sexual assault, assault, and drug trafficking offences involving a 16-year-old complainant and her friends.

The Crown alleged the accused groomed the complainant to become her pimp.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the accused exercised control or direction over the complainant's movements for the purpose of exploitation, resulting in acquittals on the human trafficking and related prostitution charges.

However, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, assault, trafficking in cocaine, and trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy at the YMCA.

The defence sought production of third-party incident reports held by the YMCA documenting other alleged misconduct by the complainant with other men at the facility.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence failed to meet the "likely relevance" threshold under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined that the records were sought as part of a speculative fishing expedition to portray the complainant as the initiator of sexual activity, relying on impermissible stereotypes and myths about sexual assault victims.

The accused was charged with sexual interference involving a twelve-year-old girl.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally touched the complainant's breast on Danforth Avenue in Toronto.

The court found that while the accused made intentional contact with the complainant, the contact was not for a sexual purpose.

The accused was motivated by frustration with pedestrians not following his perceived rules about sidewalk usage.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual interference, finding no sexual purpose to the contact.

The court also considered whether common assault was an included offence within sexual interference and concluded it was not, as common assault requires lack of consent while sexual interference does not.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a three-year-old child.

The alleged incident occurred in a park and was witnessed by the child's mother.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the mother and the child's father.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found that while the Crown presented evidence of the alleged touching, there remained a reasonable doubt as to whether the assault occurred.

The court considered the fleeting nature of the alleged contact, the unlikelihood of such conduct occurring in broad daylight in front of the mother, the prior ill will between the parties, and inconsistencies in the witness's account regarding the reason for the breakdown in their relationship.

The accused was acquitted of the charges but placed on a peace bond with conditions of no contact.

A registered nurse was sentenced after being convicted of voyeurism and sexual assault committed against two hospital patients while they were receiving emergency medical treatment.

The offences involved photographing and recording a patient in various states of undress and taking a photograph of another unconscious patient without consent.

The court emphasized the profound breach of trust by a healthcare professional exploiting vulnerable patients.

After considering aggravating factors including multiple victims and abuse of a position of authority, as well as mitigating factors such as the offender’s lack of criminal record and professional consequences, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

Credit was granted for pre‑sentence custody and lengthy restrictive bail conditions.

The offender was arrested carrying a loaded 32-calibre revolver in a public park after being threatened by an assailant at a shelter.

He pled guilty to possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

The court imposed a sentence of 22 months, reduced to 6 months after applying 1.5:1 credit for 325 days of pre-sentence custody, followed by 18 months of probation.

The decision addresses the application of sentencing principles following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Nur striking down the three-year mandatory minimum for firearm possession offences, and provides extensive analysis of the mitigative effect of harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The Crown brought a motion at a preliminary inquiry seeking an order to admit evidence of ten separate attacks on nine victims as similar act evidence on the question of identification against the accused.

The attacks occurred in the Parkdale area of Toronto between December 2009 and April 2011.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault, seven counts of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of second-degree murder.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the ten attacks demonstrated sufficient cumulative similarities to warrant admission as similar fact evidence, despite some dissimilarities in witness descriptions.

The court applied the test from R. v. Arp and R. v. Handy, examining proximity in time, similarity of detail, number of occurrences, and the balance of probative value against prejudicial effect.