Robert Wadden

This decision concerns the theft of a culturally and historically significant original silver gelatin print of Winston Churchill, known as "The Roaring Lion," taken by Canadian photographer Yousuf Karsh.

The accused, Jeffrey Wood, an art dealer, stole the portrait from the Chateau Laurier hotel in Ottawa, replaced it with a forged copy, and trafficked the original internationally through Sotheby’s auction house.

The court emphasized the unique cultural value of the artwork, the aggravating factors of forgery and trafficking, and the international scope of the crime.

After considering sentencing principles, including restraint for a first offender, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, concurrent on all counts, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating factors.

This sentencing decision concerns Sgt. Alex Esliger of the Canadian Armed Forces, convicted of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code for an incident occurring during deployment in Iraq.

The court carefully considered the facts, including the nature of the assault involving forced digital penetration and attempted intercourse, the victim impact, and the offender’s background including mental and physical health issues.

The judge emphasized principles of denunciation and deterrence, referencing key Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities, and rejected a conditional sentence despite defence submissions.

The sentence imposed was three years’ imprisonment, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a 10-year firearms prohibition, reflecting the serious nature of the offence and its impact within a military context.

The Crown applied under s. 119(1)(s) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for permission to use a s. 34 report concerning an unnamed young person.

The Crown sought to use redacted portions of the report in cross-examination of a psychiatrist in an unrelated case, suggesting the psychiatrist used identical wording in different reports, similar to concerns raised in R v. Nettleton.

The application was heard ex parte and in camera.

The court granted permission to release the redacted report to the presiding judge, defence counsel, and the witness in the other proceeding, finding that the redactions sufficiently protected the young person's identity and that the release was in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

Marco Clayton, accused of human trafficking, sought judicial interim release (bail) mid-trial before a judge (Justice Wadden) other than his trial judge (Justice Fraser).

The Crown opposed, arguing only the trial judge had jurisdiction under s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Justice Wadden found he had jurisdiction because no prior detention order existed, distinguishing the case from precedents where s. 523(2)(a) applied to vacate existing orders.

However, he declined to exercise this jurisdiction for policy and practical reasons, emphasizing that the trial judge is best positioned to assess bail grounds based on the ongoing trial evidence, and to avoid fragmentation and inefficiency.

The application was adjourned to the trial judge's next scheduled appearance.

The accused, David Arron Romlewski, was charged with two counts of mischief and one count of obstructing a peace officer, arising from the "Freedom Convoy" protests in Ottawa.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused, self-represented, presented pseudolegal arguments regarding jurisdiction, which the court summarily rejected.

The court found the accused guilty of obstructing a peace officer, as his act of sitting down in front of advancing tactical officers constituted a willful physical obstruction of their lawful duty to clear the streets.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was a party to the broader mischief committed by the Freedom Convoy protesters, as there was no evidence linking his actions to the overall protest organization or that he aided or abetted the mischief of others.

Jean Roy pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation after an unprovoked, drunken stabbing of a neighbor, Stephen Penney, who sustained permanent physical and psychological injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the premeditated nature of the attack, the severe impact on the victim, and Roy's history of violence and failed attempts at alcohol rehabilitation.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, mental health issues (mild intellectual disability, depressive disorder, PTSD, anti-social personality disorder), and candour with the psychiatrist.

The court sentenced Roy to an equivalent of four years' incarceration, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while applying the principle of restraint for a first penitentiary sentence.

Brigitte Cleroux pleaded guilty to seven offences, including personation, fraud, assault, and assault with a weapon, stemming from her fraudulent impersonation of a nurse at two medical clinics.

She performed medical procedures on patients without proper qualifications.

The court considered her extensive criminal record, which included prior convictions for impersonating a nurse.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought 4-5 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly given the breach of public trust in the healthcare system and the offender's history of similar crimes.

The court imposed a total sentence equivalent to seven years' imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for difficult COVID-19 conditions.

Jake Garvin pleaded guilty to nine offences, including possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a shotgun with a defaced serial number, criminal harassment against his parents, uttering threats to kill his dogs, two counts of causing pain and suffering to his dog (resulting in death), resisting arrest, mischief, and breach of a non-communication order.

The offences stemmed from police attending his apartment for a wellness check, finding a dead, severely beaten dog, and a hidden sawed-off shotgun.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the severe animal abuse, protracted harassment of parents, and possession of a functioning prohibited firearm, balanced against mitigating factors including the offender's guilty plea, youth, and mental health issues (FASD, bipolar disorder, substance abuse).

The Crown sought a 6-year jail term, while the defence proposed 2.5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 5 years, less 15 months credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced "Duncan" credit for pandemic conditions.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, lifetime firearms prohibition, lifetime animal prohibition, and a non-contact order with parents during custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to Criminal Negligence Causing Death after driving his pickup truck while impaired, speeding at 153 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, and passing illegally on a two-lane highway.

His vehicle struck another vehicle head-on, killing the driver.

The court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence and a 38-month driving prohibition.

The court applied sentencing principles emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation while considering mitigating factors including the accused's remorse, guilty plea, family support, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud against the Bank of Nova Scotia involving multiple mortgages obtained with false employment and income documentation totalling $1.74 million, charging criminal interest rates to two individuals, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment, consisting of two years for fraud, three months consecutive for each criminal interest rate offence, and one year concurrent for proceeds of crime.

Additionally, fines in lieu of forfeiture totalling $510,488 were imposed.

The corporation was sentenced to fines totalling $325,000.

The accused, Marcus Gil, age 19, was arrested in January 2017 on serious charges including kidnapping, forcible confinement, robbery, break and enter, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm arising from a violent home invasion.

He was released on bail in April 2017 on strict conditions including house arrest, two sureties (his grandparents), and GPS monitoring.

While on release, he allegedly breached his conditions by meeting with a witness, dealing crack cocaine, and attempting to obstruct justice by trying to convince the witness to leave the city.

The Crown brought a s. 524(8) application to cancel his previous release, and the accused brought a bail application on the new charges.

The court found the accused had not met his onus to show cause for release and ordered him detained on both tertiary and secondary grounds.

The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking disclosure of the Drug Recognition Expert's rolling logs, which document all tests performed by the expert including the suspect's name, witnessing officer, date, the expert's opinion, and whether the opinion was confirmed by toxicological testing.

The Crown opposed disclosure, arguing the records were third-party records not in Crown possession.

The court granted the application, finding that the rolling logs are relevant for court purposes as mandated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police standards, and that s. 258.1 of the Criminal Code does not prohibit disclosure of anonymized rolling logs as part of the expert's curriculum vitae.

A licensed pharmacist was convicted after trial of trafficking over 5,000 fentanyl patches over a two-year period, public mischief for staging a false robbery to cover up inventory discrepancies, and fraud against his insurance company.

The offender, who owned three pharmacies, ordered fentanyl from licensed suppliers and distributed the vast majority of patches illegally through false prescriptions and to a co-conspirator.

When the discrepancy was discovered by an employee, the offender staged a robbery with the co-conspirator, reported it to police, and defrauded his insurance company of over $36,000.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 years imprisonment for trafficking, with concurrent five-year sentences for public mischief and fraud.

The Crown brought an application under section 486.3 of the Criminal Code seeking to have counsel appointed to cross-examine the complainant on behalf of the defendant in a peace bond hearing under section 810 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant appeared in person.

The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to make the order, finding that the Criminal Code procedures and provisions apply to proceedings under section 810 by virtue of section 810(5), which provides that the summary conviction procedures apply with necessary modifications.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual touching against four young children over a 31-year period, and to possession of and making available child pornography involving over 500,000 images and 25,000 videos.

The Crown sought 13 years imprisonment while the defence sought under 5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 9 years imprisonment, less presentence custody, with ancillary orders including DNA sampling, SOIRA registration, firearms prohibition, and lifetime restrictions on contact with minors and attendance at certain locations.

The court applied sentencing principles emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for offences involving abuse of children under 18 years of age.

The accused, a pharmacist charged with trafficking in Fentanyl, public mischief, fraud, and conspiracy to commit robbery, brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 11(b) rights due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 28 months and 11 days.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets a presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice trials.

After calculating defence delay at approximately 5.5 months, the net delay was approximately 23 months, exceeding the ceiling.

The Crown sought to justify the excess delay based on case complexity and transitional case considerations.

The court found the case was not particularly complex but accepted the transitional case exception, considering the institutional delays plaguing the Ottawa jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offences, prejudice to the accused, and the defence's lack of diligence in moving the case forward.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial as scheduled.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking Schedule I substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police executed a search warrant at the defendant's residence and seized cocaine, cannabis, methamphetamine, MDMA, oxycodone, oxycontin, digital scales, drug packaging materials, cell phones, and a shotgun with ammunition.

The defendant, a 26-year-old first-time offender with stable employment and family responsibilities, was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment concurrent on all counts, with ancillary orders for DNA collection, a ten-year firearms prohibition, and forfeiture of seized items.

The defendant pleaded guilty to break and enter of a residential property, taking a motor vehicle without consent, and breach of recognizance.

The defendant, a 20-year-old with no criminal record, unlawfully entered a family home while the owners were on vacation, hosted parties over three days resulting in over $130,000 in property damage and theft, and subsequently breached his release conditions by consuming alcohol.

The Crown sought six months jail followed by probation, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence for the break and enter and a six-month conditional sentence for the other offences.

The court imposed six months jail followed by two years probation for the break and enter, with concurrent one-month sentences for the other offences, along with restitution, counselling conditions, and a firearms prohibition.

The accused, charged as a youth with four counts of indecent assault alleged to have occurred in 1980, brought a Charter s. 11(b) application seeking to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The charges were laid on July 30, 2015, with trial scheduled for June 14-17, 2017, approximately 22.5 months later.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, determining that while the case exceeded the presumptive 18-month ceiling on its face, the delay attributable to a severance decision constituted an exceptional circumstance.

After deducting the delay caused by the severance and defence unavailability, the court calculated the net delay at approximately 14.75 months, below the threshold.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial.

The accused was convicted after trial of multiple firearms offences, including discharging a firearm contrary to section 244.2(3) of the Criminal Code.

He brought a Charter application under section 12 to challenge the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years as grossly disproportionate.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Lloyd and determined that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the accused's prior conviction for armed robbery, the circumstances of the current offence involving multiple discharges in a residential area, and the appropriate sentencing range for such offences.

The Charter application was dismissed and the accused was sentenced to eight years imprisonment.