Robert F. Goldstein

Nicola Puddicombe, convicted of first-degree murder, applied for a reduction in her parole eligibility period under the "faint hope" clause (s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code).

The screening judge determined whether there was a reasonable prospect that a jury would reduce her parole ineligibility.

The court found that despite the cold-blooded nature of the murder and the applicant's initial denial of full responsibility, her significant progress in therapy, positive institutional conduct, and evolving insight into her role in the offence provided a reasonable likelihood of success before a jury.

The application to empanel a jury was granted.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to admit expert evidence from Dr. Lori Haskell on the neurobiology of trauma in a sexual assault trial against Peter Nygard.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the evidence was irrelevant, unnecessary, and that Dr. Haskell was not properly qualified.

The court applied the Mohan framework and a cost-benefit analysis, finding the evidence relevant to disabuse the jury of myths and stereotypes about victim behaviour, necessary to assist in credibility assessment, and that Dr. Haskell possessed the requisite expertise.

The application was allowed, permitting Dr. Haskell to testify for the limited purpose of explaining general responses to trauma.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to adduce count-to-count similar fact evidence against Peter Nygard in his sexual assault trial.

The court granted the application, finding a significant degree of similarity in the alleged acts and circumstances, which demonstrated a specific propensity and connected to the issues of actus reus and complainant credibility.

The similarities included the use of a unique, hidden private space at 1 Niagara Street, Mr. Nygard's control over access, aggressive physical assaults, berating of complainants, and the use of his wealth and power to lure victims.

The court also addressed the defence's arguments regarding tainting and collusion, concluding that while an opportunity for inadvertent tainting existed due to media reports and shared therapy, there was no air of reality to actual collusion, and the issue of reliability was left to the jury.

Terrell Harrison pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and discharging a firearm with intent to wound after shooting his father.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the severity of the offence, and significant mitigating factors, such as his difficult childhood, family dysfunction, and sincere remorse.

The judge also factored in the unconscionable delay in obtaining the Enhanced Pre-sentence Report and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a sentence of seven years, concurrent on both counts, with credit for pre-sentence custody amounting to 5 years and 6 months, leaving 18 months left to serve.

The offender was found guilty of multiple firearms and drug possession offences following an uncontested trial.

The court considered an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the offender's disadvantaged background, experiences with systemic racism, and poverty.

The court also weighed the extremely harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, including extensive lockdowns and triple-bunking during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Balancing the need for denunciation and deterrence with these significant mitigating factors, the court imposed a global sentence of 6 years, less 65 months of enhanced pre-sentence credit, leaving 7 months to serve.

Terrell Burke-Whittaker pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm after discharging it towards a busy highway during a funeral viewing.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the discharge of the firearm in a public place, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's sincere remorse, positive rehabilitation efforts while on bail (starting a business, acceptance into fire academy), and strong community support.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation in firearms cases, the court found exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the normal penitentiary range.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by three years of probation, along with a DNA order and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

The accused, Donald Wayne Riggs, pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism under s. 162(1)(a) and (c) of the Criminal Code, involving surreptitious visual recordings of his neighbour, C.A., over several years, including intimate and sexual acts.

The recordings, some made after his initial arrest, caused significant emotional, financial, and practical distress to the victim and her family, forcing them to move.

The Crown sought 18 months incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the duration and intrusive nature of the invasion of privacy, the filming of sexual activity, and the accused's continued behaviour after being caught.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea (though limited by timing) and mental health issues.

The court rejected the accused's claims of non-sexual purpose and insincere remorse, noting his victim-blaming.

Applying sentencing principles, particularly denunciation and general deterrence, the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the high moral blameworthiness and lack of insight.

Zuvaan Hamilton brought a Charter application to exclude a handgun from his trial, alleging violations of his s. 8 (unreasonable search of phone) and s. 10(b) (delay in right to counsel) Charter rights.

The court found no serious violations of either right.

While there was a minor s. 10(b) breach regarding identity confirmation, it was not serious enough to warrant exclusion.

The search of the phone for identification was deemed lawful.

The delay in facilitating counsel was also found to be reasonable given the circumstances at the police detachment.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Moses Water breached his conditional sentence order (CSO) by violating house arrest, failing to carry his order, and assaulting someone.

The court found the breaches serious and wilful.

Despite 72 days already spent in custody due to the suspension of his CSO, the court determined this was insufficient.

Applying the principles of sentencing and the breach regime under the Criminal Code, the court ordered an additional 90 days in custody, followed by a modified conditional sentence with extended house arrest and curfew periods, emphasizing deterrence and rehabilitation.

Amerullah Habib, father of convicted firearm offender Rehan Habib, applied under s. 490.4(3) of the Criminal Code for the return of a Toyota Corolla, which was deemed offence-related property.

The applicant asserted a lawful interest in the vehicle, claiming he paid for it, had keys, and used it as a family vehicle, and that he was innocent of any complicity in his son's offence.

The court found that the applicant had established lawful entitlement to possession of the vehicle, based on his uncontradicted evidence of payment and shared use, and that he was innocent of complicity.

The court emphasized that morally innocent third-party owners should not be subject to forfeiture, and granted the application for the return of the vehicle.

D.F. was convicted by a jury of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his niece by marriage, E.Q., who was between 6 and 10 years old.

The sexual assault count was stayed under Kienapple.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years for sexual interference and one year concurrent for invitation to sexual touching, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in child sexual abuse cases as per Friesen.

The offender was also subject to a DNA order and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order.

D.H., charged with sexual assault, brought an application seeking an order to compel the Crown to obtain and review an RCMP investigative file related to a third party (W.B.) who was found with drugs in the complainant's apartment.

D.H. argued the file was relevant to the complainant's character and credibility.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the RCMP file constituted a third-party record, not subject to the Crown's first-party disclosure duty (Stinchecombe).

The proper procedure for obtaining such records is an O'Connor application, which requires the defence to subpoena the records directly from the third party.

The court also found the material unlikely to be relevant to the complainant's credibility, deeming the request a "fishing expedition."

The 22-year-old accused pleaded guilty to firearms offences after retrieving a loaded handgun from his car and chasing a restaurant employee following a minor altercation.

The accused, who had ties to the drug trade, admitted on a wiretap to cocking the weapon and considering shooting the employee.

Despite the accused being a youthful first offender who had taken steps toward rehabilitation, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global penitentiary sentence of four years.

The accused, Kenneth Hill, brought an application to stay proceedings or exclude evidence, alleging multiple Charter breaches by police during his arrest and detention for random assaults.

The court found a violation of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel, specifically regarding the police's premature interruption of his call to duty counsel and failure to ensure he received legal advice, particularly given his apparent mental health issues.

However, the court found no violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search, including strip search and state of undress) or s. 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest).

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the s. 10(b) breach was at the low end of the spectrum in terms of impact on the accused's Charter interests, and that admitting the evidence (identification photos/videos taken prior to the breach) would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application for a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence was dismissed.

This ruling addresses factual findings necessary for sentencing after a jury convicted the accused, D.F., of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching related to complainant E.Q. The judge applied principles from R. v. Ferguson and R. v. J.P. to determine the facts for sentencing, being bound by the jury's verdict but making independent findings where ambiguous.

The court found that sexual touching occurred in the bedroom of the accused's apartment, including petting, digital penetration, cunnilingus, fellatio, and touching of the accused's penis.

However, the court rejected the complainant's testimony regarding sexual activity in the main room, during car trips, in the stairwell, or at the Royal Canadian Legion, citing reliability concerns.

The applicants, including several current and former sex workers and a sex worker advocacy organization, brought a constitutional challenge against several provisions of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA), which criminalized the purchase of sexual services and related activities.

The applicants argued that the provisions violated sections 7, 2(b), 2(d), and 15 of the Charter by replicating the harms of the previous prostitution laws struck down in Bedford.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the provisions did not violate sections 7, 2(d), or 15 of the Charter.

While the Attorney General conceded that certain provisions violated section 2(b) freedom of expression, the court found these limits were demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter as a proportionate response to the pressing and substantial objective of reducing the demand for sex work and protecting vulnerable persons from exploitation.

The offender, Ryan Foster, pleaded guilty to three convenience store robberies involving weapons and gratuitous violence.

The Crown sought a 9-year global sentence and a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO).

The defence sought a 7-year global sentence (18 months further custody) and a 5-6 year LTSO.

The court imposed an 8-year global sentence, resulting in 18 months further custody, and a 7-year LTSO.

The judge emphasized general and specific deterrence, while also considering the offender's mental health issues (PTSD, ASPD) and potential for rehabilitation, recommending he serve his remaining sentence at a correctional and treatment centre.

The Crown applied to introduce similar fact evidence from a ninth complainant (S.R.) in a sexual assault and forcible confinement trial against Peter Nygard.

The court analyzed the probative value of S.R.'s evidence, considering similarities with the on-indictment complainants, potential for collusion, and credibility issues.

The judge found sufficient similarity and high probative value, concluding that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, and allowed the Crown's application.

The Crown brought an application to introduce evidence of other sexual activity by the complainant and a discreditable comment made by the accused, R.G., in a case where R.G. is charged with sexual interference of his stepdaughter.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this evidence under the principles of s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the evidence was not being introduced for "twin myth" reasons and was relevant to the accused's state of mind and whether he committed the actus reus.

The probative value of the evidence was determined to outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The Crown's application was granted, and the accused's comment was provisionally admissible, with a requirement for the Crown to bring a separate discreditable conduct application.

This is a sentencing decision for Iourii Starostin, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the death of his 87-year-old stepfather.

The offender, highly intoxicated at the time, brutally beat the victim.

The court considered the Crown's request for 12-14 years and the defence's request for 8 years.

Aggravating factors included the vulnerability of the victim, the brutality of the attack, and the offender's failure to address his long-standing alcohol use disorder despite previous convictions.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court sentenced the offender to 11 years imprisonment, with 3 years credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 8 years remaining to be served.

A DNA order and a lifetime s. 109 order were also imposed.