Renée E. M. Gregor

The accused was charged with failing to attend court contrary to section 145(2)(b) of the Criminal Code after he failed to appear on the thirteenth day of his trial for unrelated criminal charges.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused's subjective intent not to appear.

The court found that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence was that the accused intended not to appear, as he had been present on the preceding trial day and never returned to court thereafter.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent.

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

The court considered the sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, including the limited distribution of the images, the accused's lack of criminal record, remorse, and stringent bail conditions.

The court granted a conditional discharge with a twelve-month probation period, finding it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, emphasizing that deterrence and denunciation can be achieved without a conviction in such circumstances.

The accused, C. L., was charged with sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving multiple complainants.

The Crown conceded one count, and the remaining six counts were dismissed after trial.

The court considered a similar fact evidence application, finding some evidence tainted by discussions between complainants, while other similar fact evidence was admissible.

Ultimately, due to significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainants' evidence, the court was left with a reasonable doubt on all remaining charges, leading to an acquittal.

The offender was found guilty of touching a person under 16 for a sexual purpose, involving a long-term relationship with a young person in a position of trust.

The court determined a fit sentence was 7 years (84 months) imprisonment.

The court then considered the offender's pre-sentence custody at the Sudbury Jail, which involved frequent lockdowns, overcrowding, mice infestations, and extended segregation.

Applying the principles from Summers and Duncan, the court awarded 1.5:1 credit for time served plus an additional 9 months for harsh conditions, resulting in a total credit of 46.5 months and a net sentence of 37.5 months.

The applicant sought an order quashing a preliminary hearing judge's decision to commit her for trial on five charges, including firearm possession, unlawful transfer, theft of chattels, unlawful entry into a dwelling, and possession of a firearm obtained by crime.

The court reviewed the committal for jurisdictional error, specifically the absence of evidence on essential elements.

The court found sufficient evidence for committal on the firearm charges (Counts 1, 2, 5) and theft (Count 3, limited to money and the firearm).

However, the committal for unlawful entry (Count 4) was quashed because the applicant, as a joint owner of the matrimonial home without an exclusive possession order, had a lawful right to be there.

The Crown applied under section 486.2(1) of the Criminal Code for an order allowing two child witnesses to testify via video link from outside the courtroom in a trial for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The defence objected to the use of remote video technology, arguing the court had discretion to order a different accommodation, such as testifying behind a screen.

The court held that under section 486.2(1), the presiding judge has no discretion to alter the requested accommodation unless it would interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Finding no such interference, the court granted the Crown's application with specific conditions to ensure trial efficiency.