Richard P. O’Brien

D.S. was sentenced for sexual assault against his stepdaughter, M.M., committed between 2013 and 2014 when she was 19.

The court considered prior uncharged sexual assaults in Alberta (from age 6 to 15) as aggravating factors, proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The sentencing emphasized the extreme frequency and repetition of the assaults, the profound breach of trust by the stepfather, and the catastrophic psychological and emotional impact on the victim, including Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD, eating disorders, and agoraphobia.

Despite the defence's recommendation of 5-7 years, the court imposed the maximum sentence of 10 years' incarceration, citing the extraordinary gravity of the offence, the devastating impact on the victim, and the offender's high moral culpability, emphasizing denunciation.

Ancillary orders for DNA databank, SOIRA, and non-communication were also made.

A defendant was charged with sexual assault against a complainant, his stepdaughter, occurring in Brampton between 2013 and 2014.

The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, corroborated by her mother's evidence of the defendant's prior admission of sexual assault against the complainant in another jurisdiction (uncharged offences), admitted as similar fact evidence.

The defence challenged the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and her mother, citing the complainant's history of lying, recantations, mental health issues, and amicable electronic communications with the defendant.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible despite its flaws, accepting explanations for inconsistencies and her complex relationship with the defendant.

The court found the mother's testimony regarding the defendant's admission after a suicide attempt to be convincing and confirmed by the mother's later physical confrontation with the defendant.

The similar fact evidence from the other jurisdiction was deemed highly probative.

The court rejected the defendant's denials and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ashir Mahmood was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting C.A. The court, in its sentencing reasons, made a finding of penetration for sentencing purposes under section 724(2) of the Criminal Code.

Aggravating factors included the brazen nature of the assault on a sleeping victim, the lack of condom use causing additional trauma, and a breach of trust.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, the offender's relative youth at the time of the offence, family support, and a significant pre-sentence delay of almost five years.

The court noted the offender's substance abuse and mental health issues but found they did not diminish responsibility for the offence.

The judge imposed a sentence of three years incarceration, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, and made strong recommendations for mental health and addiction treatment during custody.

The accused, facing charges of assault and sexual assault, brought a motion for a Rowbotham order, seeking state-funded counsel.

The court found that Legal Aid had refused his application and that he lacked the financial means to retain counsel, despite earning too much to qualify for Legal Aid.

Crucially, the court determined that representation by counsel was essential for the accused to receive a fair trial, given his limited education, lack of litigation experience, and poor oral communication skills, which would hinder his ability to make full answer and defence in an eight-day jury trial.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings unless the Ministry of the Attorney General arranged for counsel.

The accused, charged with drug possession for trafficking, brought applications under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence (drugs and statements) obtained from a motel room.

The Crown also sought a ruling on the voluntariness of an accused's statement.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: police entered the motel room without informed consent, conducted a warrantless search, and breached the right to counsel.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings, alleging breaches of his Charter rights (s. 7 and s. 12) due to excessive police force during his arrest for robbery and other charges.

Police used a service dog and tasers to apprehend the non-compliant suspect who was believed to be armed and dangerous.

The court found the police use of force objectively reasonable, necessary, and proportionate given the exigent circumstances, and dismissed the application.