Richard Arthur Braiden

The defendant, Abe Benico Vergara, was found guilty after a trial of six counts of sexual assault involving six adult employees at his massage parlour.

The offences involved non-consensual sexual activity during otherwise consensual massages.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the abuse of a position of authority and forced penetration, and mitigating factors, such as no prior criminal record and positive family support.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and totality, the court sentenced the defendant to a total of 68 months (5 years and 8 months) in jail, with some counts running concurrently and others consecutively.

Ancillary orders for a communication ban, DNA, lifetime weapons prohibition, and sexual offender registry were also imposed.

Daniella Leis pleaded guilty to four counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm following a collision that severed a gas line, leading to a massive explosion in a residential area and serious injuries to four first responders.

The court considered aggravating factors, including high blood alcohol concentration and dangerous driving, and mitigating factors, such as her guilty plea, lack of prior record, and Indigenous background (Gladue factors).

The judge balanced the need for denunciation and general deterrence with the offender's personal circumstances and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration conditions.

A three-year penitentiary sentence was imposed, along with a three-year driving prohibition.

Two defendants were sentenced for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following their arrest during a traffic stop in which 31 grams of cocaine and a digital scale were found in their vehicle.

The Crown sought six months incarceration for each defendant.

The defendants argued exceptional circumstances warranted departure from the standard sentencing range.

The court imposed six months incarceration on the first defendant, finding insufficient exceptional circumstances, but imposed 90 days intermittent incarceration on the second defendant, finding his intellectual disability and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a below-range sentence.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm committed during a recreational no-contact hockey game.

The accused, a goalie, struck another player in the face with his stick after being contacted in the crease, causing serious injuries including a fractured jaw, dental damage, and concussion.

The court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence with two years probation and a prohibition on playing hockey, rejecting both a discharge and incarceration.

The court distinguished between professional and recreational leagues, finding that recreational players do not consent to the same level of violence as professional athletes.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including sexual assault causing bodily harm, choking during sexual assault, and break and enter arising from violent attacks against two elderly neighbours.

The defence argued that the accused’s actions were the result of non‑insane automatism caused by a neurological event, relying on expert evidence that a temporal lobe seizure likely triggered the behaviour.

The Crown challenged the reliability of that opinion and argued the conduct was voluntary or alternatively that any automatistic state resulted from a disease of the mind.

The court accepted the neurologist’s evidence and found the accused was most likely in an automatistic state caused by a transient medical condition and not a disease of the mind.

As voluntariness was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding eighty milligrams contrary to section 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand and should have first administered a roadside screening device.

The officer's observations—including no evidence of bad driving, unclear odour of alcohol, minimal gait irregularities, and normal speech—amounted only to reasonable suspicion.

The court found a breach of the accused's section 8 Charter rights and excluded the breath test results under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Both charges were dismissed.

During a criminal trial the accused brought a Charter application alleging that police violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms through an unreasonable search of his apartment executed pursuant to a telewarrant.

The accused argued that the information to obtain the warrant relied improperly on a confidential informant and that the search of a safe within the residence required separate judicial authorization.

The court held that the information to obtain the telewarrant contained sufficient grounds, supported by independent police investigation and corroborating information from a building superintendent.

The court further held that a safe located during execution of a valid search warrant could be searched without obtaining a second warrant.

The application to exclude the firearm under s. 24(2) was dismissed and the evidence was ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police recovered crack cocaine from a safe and a smaller quantity from a witness during a domestic incident investigation.

The Crown relied heavily on the evidence of a key witness who repeatedly recanted and altered her account of events, including statements to police, testimony at the preliminary inquiry, and testimony at trial.

The court found the witness unreliable due to significant inconsistencies and admissions of lying.

Although circumstantial evidence linked the accused to a safe containing cocaine, other individuals had access to the apartment and may have handled the safe.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge or control of the cocaine.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The incident occurred in a Canadian Tire parking lot in St. Thomas, Ontario, when the accused's vehicle struck a cyclist from behind.

The Crown was required to prove that the accused operated the vehicle in a dangerous manner, constituting a marked departure from how a reasonable, prudent person would drive in similar circumstances.

The trial focused on the manner of driving immediately before the collision, not the result.

The court found that the accused became upset with the cyclist on the public roadway and followed him into the parking lot in an intimidating manner, either traveling at excessive speed throughout or accelerating before impact, without attempting to brake or maneuver to avoid the collision.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that the cyclist suddenly veered in front of the vehicle and found the driving constituted criminal conduct warranting conviction.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The incident occurred on an access road behind businesses in London, Ontario.

The Crown alleged the accused drove at high speed, nearly struck a child, and then deliberately drove his vehicle towards an off-duty police officer.

The accused testified he drove at moderate speeds, did not intentionally drive at the officer, and that his vehicle may have swerved due to a pothole.

The court found credibility issues with the Crown witnesses and accepted that a reasonable doubt existed regarding the accused's intent and the manner of driving.

The charge was dismissed.