Robert B. Horton

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine (55.29 grams) and failure to comply with a release order.

The Crown sought two years imprisonment while defence counsel sought six months less one day.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence, considering the seriousness of cocaine trafficking, the offender's status as a mid-level trafficker motivated by financial gain, and significant mitigating factors including the offender's youth, genuine remorse, strong family support, reasonable prospects for rehabilitation, and social context evidence regarding systemic discrimination affecting the offender as a Black man.

The sentence was reduced from a proportionate 24 months due to the offender's existing significant penitentiary sentence and the mitigating circumstances presented.

This decision addresses a post-verdict application by Patrick Delisle seeking to set aside his conviction and declare a mistrial on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The core issue was whether trial counsel failed to properly advise Delisle of his right to elect the mode of trial, a fundamental procedural right under s. 536 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that trial counsel did not adequately inform Delisle of this right, particularly after significant additional charges were laid, which increased Delisle’s jeopardy.

The court held that this failure constituted a denial of Delisle’s right to make an informed election, undermining the fairness of the trial process.

The only appropriate remedy was to grant a mistrial and vacate the conviction, ordering a new trial.

The Linck Child, Youth and Family Supports (Society) brought a motion to vary a temporary care order for the child K.M., seeking to place the child with the paternal grandparents.

The child's parents and maternal grandparents consented to this placement.

The foster parents, with whom K.M. had resided for 22 months, opposed the motion, seeking to retain care and pursue adoption.

The court granted the Society's motion, emphasizing the legislative priority of kin placement over foster care, even where a strong attachment to foster parents exists.

The court reiterated that foster parents do not have standing to advance a permanent care plan at this stage of proceedings.

The accused, Neetahwis Shognosh-Diaz, was found guilty of sexually assaulting the complainant, who was impaired by alcohol and unable to consent, involving vaginal and anal penetration.

The court considered sentencing submissions from both the Crown, who sought 36-48 months' custody, and the defence, who proposed an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court acknowledged the accused's youth, lack of prior record, and Gladue factors, but emphasized the gravity of the offence, the victim's vulnerability, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

Ultimately, the court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by a 36-month probationary term, along with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition, DNA order, and SOIRA registration.

The Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of the child S.H. in kinship placement, with supervised access for the Respondent Mother.

The Mother opposed, seeking the child's return to her care, and challenged the admissibility of photographs taken by the Society, arguing a Charter breach.

The court found a serious Charter infringement regarding the photographs but, applying the R. v. Grant framework, determined that their exclusion would not place the child at risk of harm nor significantly impact the Society's case, as the narrative evidence was sufficient.

Ultimately, the court found the Mother unable to meet parenting responsibilities due to home conditions, mental health, and interaction issues, and ordered the child to remain in kinship care with Society supervision and specific terms for the Mother, while excluding the contested photographs from evidence.

Brent Loyer pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The Crown sought 14-18 months custody, while the Defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's significant emotional and physical harm and the offender's position of trust, and mitigating factors such as the offender's age (82), lack of prior record, and medical issues.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The judge imposed a blended sentence: five months of incarceration for the more serious count (vaginal touching) and an 18-month consecutive conditional sentence for the other count (kissing), followed by a 36-month probation order.

Ancillary orders included DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA, and non-contact orders.

The respondent brought a motion to change a spousal support order, seeking to terminate payments due to the applicant's re-partnering.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought retroactive spousal support arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's new committed relationship, which diminished her need-based entitlement to support.

The applicant's claim for retroactive arrears was dismissed as the respondent had complied with the existing order.

The court varied the spousal support, reducing the monthly amount and setting a future termination date, while acknowledging a modest compensatory element.

The applicant sought an interim parenting order for joint decision-making and graduated parenting time with the child.

The respondent mother filed a cross-motion to file a domestic contract, stay the applicant's motion, and amend the child's birth certificate to identify the biological father.

The court granted interim contact time to the applicant, ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, directed the filing of the domestic contract, and dispensed with the applicant's consent to amend the birth certificate.

The court found a strong, positive relationship between the applicant and the child, and largely dismissed the respondent mother's arguments against contact.