Richard Morris

The accused pleaded guilty to mischief over $5,000 by discharging two shotgun rounds into a neighbour's vehicle and possessing firearms without a licence.

The offence occurred when the accused, intoxicated and frustrated by a car alarm disrupting his sleep, fired at his neighbour's F-150 truck.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, a weapons prohibition for ten years, and forfeiture of the shotgun, balancing significant aggravating factors (unlicensed firearms, discharge in a semi-urban setting while intoxicated, substantial property damage) against substantial mitigating factors (guilty plea, cooperation with police, no criminal record, gainful employment, and significant rehabilitative efforts including anger management and substance abuse counselling).

This decision addresses whether a Crown witness, Constable Emmanuelle Boucher, may testify remotely via videoconference at trial under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Ashley Russell, faces a charge of operating a conveyance while prohibited.

The Court balanced factors including the witness's location, costs, the nature of the offence, and the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Court found that the presumption of in-person testimony was overcome, permitting remote testimony by Zoom with conditions to ensure fairness and integrity of the evidence.

This case involves a sexual assault charge against J.T., a member of the Canadian Forces, alleged to have occurred in 2012 at Garrison Petawawa.

The complainant, G.G., also a military member, testified about the assault and subsequent events, including delayed reporting due to military hierarchy and fear of reprisals.

The case turned on credibility and reliability assessments of the witnesses, including conflicting evidence from military personnel and civilian employees.

The judge found significant inconsistencies and irreconcilable differences in the complainant's evidence compared to other witnesses, and issues with the reliability of supporting testimony.

Despite not believing the accused's evidence, the judge found reasonable doubt due to these inconsistencies and acquitted J.T.

This decision involves a complex sentencing of K.T. for multiple sexual offences including criminal harassment, indecent communications, child pornography, luring, voyeurism, and exposure to persons under the age of 16.

The court carefully considered the offender’s mental health, intellectual functioning, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the deplorable pre-sentence custody conditions at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The judge imposed consecutive sentences as mandated by the Criminal Code, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

N.G. was convicted by a jury of 13 sexual offences against his four biological daughters, committed over approximately two decades (2001-2019).

This decision addresses his sentencing.

The court considered the severe impact on the victims, the breach of trust by the offender, and the prolonged nature of the abuse as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included N.G. being a first-time offender, his employment history, community involvement, and low risk of re-offending.

The court imposed a total sentence of 12 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives, and issued several ancillary orders including DNA sample, SOIRA registration, firearms prohibition, and non-contact orders.

The accused, a former high school teacher, was charged with sexual assault against a former student, H.S., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused groomed the complainant and engaged in sexual activity with her on multiple occasions while she was a student, abusing a position of trust and authority.

The defence argued that the complainant's memory was unreliable and inconsistent, making it unsafe to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable due to significant inconsistencies and a lack of detail regarding the alleged sexual encounters, leading to an acquittal.

The offender, Timothy Godin, pleaded guilty to numerous offences including personation, dangerous operation of a vehicle causing bodily harm, failure to stop at an accident scene, breach of undertaking, various Highway Traffic Act offences, impaired driving, and arson causing damage to a vehicle and dwelling house.

The offences occurred over two years, linked to the offender's alcoholism and cocaine use.

The Crown sought five years incarceration or two years imprisonment followed by three years probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the seriousness of the arson and dangerous driving.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 18 months to two years less a day, highlighting the offender's rehabilitation efforts.

The court found denunciation and deterrence paramount, particularly for serious arson, and determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault against his daughter (AH), and breach of a probation order.

The case primarily relied on the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's videotaped statement and her viva voce testimony, which was challenged by the defence as inconsistent and unreliable due to the passage of time and potential influence.

The accused denied the allegations, offering alternative explanations related to domestic violence, exposure to pornography, and animus from the complainant.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles for credibility assessment, rejected the accused's explanations as self-serving speculation, and found the complainant's evidence compelling for the sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault (penis between legs, fellatio, and ejaculation) charges.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the cunnilingus and vaginal touching allegations.

The accused was found guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault (as proven), and breach of probation.

The accused, G.M., charged with sexual assault and extortion, applied for his seven-day trial to be conducted remotely from Toronto, citing cost savings and his right to counsel of choice.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing it was late, premature, and that in-person trials are the norm.

The court, applying sections 715.21 and 715.23 of the Criminal Code, dismissed the application.

The judge emphasized the presumption of in-person trials, the lack of compelling reasons beyond counsel's convenience, and the practical difficulties and potential jurisdictional issues associated with remote criminal trials, especially for serious and lengthy matters.

The accused, TP, faced five criminal charges: assault, mischief to property, dangerous operation of a conveyance, uttering threats, and failing to comply with an undertaking, stemming from a tumultuous separation from her partner, CR, and a house fire.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of the key witnesses, including TP and CR, finding both generally unreliable due to inconsistencies and animosity.

Ultimately, TP was convicted of mischief for intentionally breaking a door at a neighbour's residence while attempting to retrieve her children.

She was acquitted of the remaining four charges, as the Crown failed to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, often due to uncorroborated testimony or reasonable doubt regarding the exact words of the threat and authorship of messages.

The accused, MG, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against KM, alleged to have occurred in June 2007 and April 2008.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, applying the W.(D.) formulation.

While the judge found parts of the accused's testimony incredible, the complainant's evidence was deemed unreliable due to the significant passage of time and her conscious efforts to suppress memories, leading to a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, MG was found not guilty on both counts.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a child witness's videotaped statement under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code, specifically whether the witness's failure to remember giving the statement is fatal to its admission.

The court found that it is not, interpreting "adopts" in line with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. F. (C.C.).

The decision emphasizes that the child's attestation of truthfulness at the time the statement was made, coupled with other reliability factors, is sufficient for adoption, even without a present memory of the events or the act of making the statement.

The legislative purpose of preserving early accounts from vulnerable witnesses is highlighted.

The accused, P.T., was charged with multiple sexual offences against K.C., his great-niece, occurring between 2013 and 2015 when K.C. was a young child.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused.

The court applied the W.(D.) test, finding the complainant's testimony inconsistent and unreliable due to significant omissions in her initial police statement (e.g., anal penetration, biting the accused) and poor general recollection, despite allowances for her age.

The accused's denials were found credible.

Consequently, the court found the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The defendant, Timothy Elmore, faced charges including assault, mischief, breaking and entering, loitering, and uttering threats.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence applied for a directed verdict on the first four charges, arguing insufficient evidence.

The Crown cross-applied to amend the information to conform with the evidence.

The court dismissed the assault charge, finding the contact accidental.

The mischief charge was dismissed as the damaged property was solely owned by the defendant.

The break and enter and loitering charges were dismissed because the defendant, as a legal owner with an equal right of possession to the matrimonial home, could not be found guilty of breaking into or loitering on his own property, absent a court order or enforceable agreement to the contrary.

The Crown's application to amend the information was denied due to potential prejudice to the defence.

The accused, T.M., was charged with multiple counts of assault and sexual assault against R.G., and one count of assault against E.M. The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, R.G., and the accused, T.M., applying the W.D. analysis.

The court found R.G.'s evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable, noting her animus towards T.M. and delayed, inconsistent disclosures.

The court believed T.M.'s denials and found him not guilty on all charges.

Sarah Lochead was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg within two hours of ceasing to operate a conveyance, contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defense admitted the Crown's case but sought to invoke the exception under section 320.14(5), arguing she consumed alcohol only after ceasing to operate her vehicle, had no reasonable expectation of providing a breath sample, and her BAC was below 80 mg while driving.

The court found her testimony lacked credibility and reliability, particularly regarding her cell reception, travel time, and alcohol consumption claims.

The court concluded she failed to prove the statutory prerequisites for the exception on a balance of probabilities and found her guilty.

A young person charged with two counts of sexual assault under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The complainant alleged sexual assault on March 17, 2017, and during summer 2017 at a Tim Hortons restaurant.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming consensual sexual activity on the first occasion and denying any sexual contact on the second occasion.

The trial judge found the accused's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the complainant's evidence, and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing credibility based on logic, human experience, and common sense, and rejects stereotypical assumptions about how sexual assault victims should behave.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference following an alleged incident on May 2-3, 2015, when the complainant, a 15-year-old girl, was sleeping at a friend's house.

The complainant testified that she awoke to find the defendant with his fingers inserted under her shorts and underwear, touching her crotch.

The defendant denied entering the room or having any contact with the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, noting multiple corroborations and inconsistencies in the defendant's testimony.

The defendant was convicted of both sexual assault and sexual interference.

The court also addressed the legal issue of whether the Crown must prove the defendant's knowledge of the complainant's age for the sexual interference charge, concluding that the Crown bears no such burden unless the defendant introduces evidence of his belief regarding the complainant's age.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on two counts of breach of probation following a roadside RIDE stop where police demanded identification from vehicle passengers and conducted a CPIC check.

The trial judge had found Charter breaches, including unlawful detention and unreasonable search and seizure, after concluding that the demand for identification and retention of the respondent’s birth certificate amounted to detention without lawful grounds.

Evidence of the probation breach was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter and the respondent was acquitted.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge’s findings of detention and Charter breaches were supported by the evidence and that his exclusion of evidence under the Grant framework was entitled to deference.

The Crown failed to demonstrate any reversible error in the trial judge’s reasoning or application of legal principles.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexually assaulting two minor complainants.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility under the W.(D.) framework and in refusing to allow his counsel to cross-examine the complainants on their victim impact statements at sentencing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and his reasons were sufficient for appellate review.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by effectively denying defence counsel the opportunity to establish an 'air of reality' to justify cross-examining the complainants on their victim impact statements.

The matter was remitted for a fresh sentencing hearing.