Robert M. Wright

Following a trial conviction for assault causing bodily harm, the court sentenced the accused for a prolonged and violent assault arising from a neighbour dispute.

The court treated the victim's vulnerability, the viciousness of the attack, the location at the victim's home, and the accused's status as a court officer as aggravating factors, while also recognizing remorse, collateral employment consequences, and strong prior good character.

A conditional discharge and suspended sentence were rejected as contrary to the public interest and insufficient to meet denunciation and deterrence.

The court nevertheless found that a custodial sentence could safely be served in the community and imposed a 9-month conditional sentence order followed by 12 months' probation, together with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused was involved in a serious motor vehicle collision where her vehicle crossed the median and struck a post.

Police arrived and moved her from the hazardous roadway, subsequently noting signs of impairment and arresting her.

The accused brought a blended Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) regarding her arrest, alleged prior detention, and right to counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the officers had reasonable and probable grounds, the initial interaction was not a detention, and the accused understood her rights despite being obstinate.

The court found the accused guilty of both impaired operation and operating with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of a heavily damaged vehicle outside a school.

Police questioned him in an ambulance without advising him of his detention or rights, and failed to address clear language barriers when providing access to counsel.

The court found significant breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter and excluded the breath test results and statements under s. 24(2).

However, based on the totality of the remaining evidence, including the unexplained collision, odour of alcohol, empty beer can, and the accused's confusion and physical state, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation of a conveyance.

The offender was found guilty of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and breaches of probation after attacking his neighbor with a metal pole and a cleaver-style knife.

The court conditionally stayed the assault with a weapon charge under the Kienapple principle.

Weighing the offender's lengthy criminal record and the severe injuries caused against mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody and substance abuse issues, the court imposed a total sentence of five years' imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody.

Sentencing for sexual interference of one child complainant resulting in pregnancy, and for receiving material benefit from the trafficking of another child complainant in the sex trade, together with robbery and breach of a release order.

The court applied the proportionality principle, the child-sex-offence sentencing guidance in Friesen, the totality principle, and Summers pre-sentence custody credit, while also treating exceptionally punitive remand conditions as mitigating.

Significant aggravating factors included the victims' ages, the offender's degree of control, internet advertising of sexually exploitative images, pregnancy, repeated breach of a no-contact order, and serious emotional harm to the complainants and one complainant's family.

The court imposed a global 10-year penitentiary sentence less 608 days' credit, plus ancillary DNA, SOIRA, firearm prohibition, no-contact, s. 161, and forfeiture orders.

The accused was stopped for speeding and subsequently arrested for driving with a suspended license under the Highway Traffic Act.

During the arrest, the officer smelled alcohol and made an approved screening device demand, which the accused refused, leading to the vehicle being towed.

An inventory search of the trunk revealed a satchel containing a loaded handgun, drugs, and the accused's identification.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter applications alleging racial profiling and arbitrary detention, finding the arrest lawful and the utterances voluntary.

The accused was found guilty of multiple firearms and driving offences, possession of MDMA for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of cocaine.

In this judge-alone criminal trial, the accused admitted inflicting injuries but asserted self-defence in relation to an apartment-hallway altercation involving a metal pole and a knife.

The court applied the D.W. framework, assessed credibility and reliability in light of internal inconsistencies, substance-use evidence, criminal records, and video corroboration, and rejected the accused’s account.

The court held there was no evidentiary foundation for self-defence and, alternatively, that the accused’s own testimony failed the motive and reasonableness components under s. 34.

The court accepted key factual findings supported by surveillance and medical evidence, including repeated knife strikes and post-incident concealment conduct.

Convictions were entered for assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and two probation breaches.

Following conviction after trial for two counts of criminal harassment and theft under $5000 against a former intimate partner, the court determined sentence.

The accused had an extensive record including numerous court-order breaches and violent offences, prior conditional sentences, and no remorse or participation at sentencing.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles, including ss. 718 and 718.2(a)(ii), the court treated intimate-partner context, repeated attendances at the complainant’s residence, and disregard of police caution as aggravating.

The court held that a conditional sentence order would not protect community safety and would not satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

A global seven-month custodial sentence with pre-sentence custody credit, concurrent terms, two years’ probation, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition was imposed.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a physical altercation with his partner's neighbour in a condominium courtyard.

The accused claimed self-defence, alleging he was responding to a threat made against his partner and a subsequent threat with a knife against himself.

The court rejected the accused's evidence regarding the knife and found that his response to the verbal threat was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The Crown successfully disproved the elements of self-defence, and the accused was found guilty.

Application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that the applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) was violated.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 792 days.

After subtracting an explicit waiver period, 582 days remained for consideration, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling of 547 days by 34 days.

The court deducted 33 days as defence delay for failing to schedule a Crown Pre-Trial after having acknowledged sufficient disclosure, and 60 days for unexplained delay in scheduling a trial scheduling conference after the Judicial Pre-Trial.

These deductions brought the net delay to 489 days, below the Jordan ceiling.

The court declined to deduct time for late notice of the stay application as the delay caused no prejudice.

Below the ceiling, the applicant failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite proceedings and failed to show the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and four counts of failing to comply with a condition of a release order.

The offender sexually assaulted his former intimate partner while subject to a release order prohibiting contact with her.

He breached the non-contact condition by contacting her by telephone the day following the assault.

The Crown sought a global sentence of two years jail followed by 12 months probation, along with ancillary orders.

The defence argued that the offender's pre-sentence custody of 310 real days, credited as 465 days, was sufficient time served given mitigating factors including harsh detention conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of approximately 15.5 months jail followed by 12 months probation, taking into account aggravating factors including persistence in sexual advances despite repeated refusals, the statutory aggravation of intimate partner violence, the offender's criminal record, and breach of court orders, balanced against mitigating factors including remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

This decision involves the sentencing of P.M. following convictions for counselling sexual touching, sexual assault, sexual interference, and making child pornography involving a single victim who was the daughter of P.M.'s partner.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's young age, abuse of trust, surreptitious video recording, and significant impact on the victim and her family.

Mitigating factors included family support, counselling efforts, and mental health issues.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA reporting, firearm prohibitions, and a 20-year order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code restricting contact with minors and certain locations.

This decision involves a sexual assault trial where the accused, Dru Norris, was charged with multiple counts including sexual assault and breaches of release conditions.

The court applied the framework from R. v. D.W. to assess the credibility and reliability of the complainant L.T. and the accused.

The judge found the accused's evidence inconsistent, illogical, and evasive, while accepting the complainant's testimony as credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and the breaches of release conditions.

Praveen Balahumar pleaded guilty to unlawfully being in a dwelling house, sexual assault, and forcible confinement of an 84-year-old victim with advanced dementia.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the home invasion aspect, the location of the assault in the victim's home, and the significant emotional impact on the victim and her family.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of prior record, rehabilitative potential, family support, and restrictive pre-sentence release conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for sexual violence.

A total sentence of six-and-a-half years incarceration was imposed, reduced by credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 1855 days (approximately five years and one month) to serve.

Ancillary orders for DNA, SOIRA, and a firearms prohibition were also made.

Peter Kell was tried for impaired operation of a conveyance and refusal to provide a breath sample.

He brought a Charter application under s. 10(b) seeking exclusion of the refusal evidence, arguing police failed to provide a "Prosper-style warning" upon his waiver of the right to counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no breach of s. 10(b) as the accused had not been frustrated in attempts to reach counsel and clearly refused counsel.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the refusal was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the impaired operation was also proven by circumstantial evidence, even without the adverse inference from the refusal.

Sharoze Raja pleaded guilty to five counts, including two armed robberies (bank and armoured truck), unlawful possession of a loaded restricted firearm, breach of a YCJA weapons prohibition, and failure to comply with a release order.

The offences involved significant threats of violence with firearms.

The court considered aggravating factors such as victim impact, planning, and the offender's role, alongside mitigating factors including his youth, guilty plea, remorse, difficult background (family violence, racism, learned helplessness), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The Crown sought an eight-year global sentence, while the Defence sought the five-year mandatory minimum.

The court imposed a global sentence of six years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 761 days (approximately 25 months) to serve.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

P.M. was charged with making child pornography, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving his girlfriend's 9 or 10-year-old daughter.

The accused recorded the child manipulating her vagina, claiming it was to check for a yeast infection.

The court found the complainant and her mother credible.

Applying an objective test, the court determined the video's dominant characteristic was the depiction of the child's sexual organ for a sexual purpose, rejecting the medical defence.

The court found that P.M.'s direction to the child to touch herself constituted an indirect application of force, satisfying the elements of sexual interference and sexual assault.

The touching was found to be for a sexual purpose, violating the child's sexual integrity.

P.M. was found guilty of all four counts.

Counts of sexual interference and sexual assault were conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle as they arose from the same conduct as counselling sexual touching.

The accused, Luke Eastman, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was 1133 days, exceeding the 18-month (547-day) presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court analyzed periods of delay attributable to the defence, including a change of counsel, failure to conduct pre-trials, and lack of proactive engagement in securing earlier trial dates or notifying the court of the s. 11(b) issue.

After deducting defence-attributable delay, the net delay was 536 days, which fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Dean Archibald was found guilty of aggravated assault, assault, theft under $5000, and mischief under $5000.

The aggravated assault caused severe facial fractures and unconsciousness to one victim, a building superintendent, and the other victim was assaulted while attempting to call for help, with her phone destroyed.

The Crown sought a five-year jail sentence, while the Defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the unprovoked and vicious nature of the attack, significant victim impact, and interference with aid, alongside mitigating factors such as harsh pre-sentence custody and the offender's delusional disorder.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' incarceration, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate given the gravity of the offences.

P.R. was found guilty of three counts of sexual assault, three counts of sexual interference, and two counts of invitation to sexual touching involving his daughter and two nieces, aged five to sixteen.

The court considered aggravating factors including the relationship of trust, the victims' young ages, repetition and duration of abuse, vulnerability, and significant psychological impact.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, pro-social history, and community support, though tempered by lack of remorse.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences, rejecting the notion that non-penetrative acts are less harmful.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or a six-year global sentence, while the Crown sought 12.5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years incarceration, with specific concurrent and consecutive terms for the counts, and various ancillary orders including DNA, weapons prohibition, and a SOIRA order for life.