Roger D. Yachetti

The offender pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer of over $219,000 over a five-year period using three separate methods, including forging a colleague's signature on cheques.

The Crown sought an 18-23 month custodial sentence with restitution and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a one-year custodial sentence, finding that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the fundamental purposes of sentencing, particularly denunciation and deterrence in cases involving breach of trust.

The court also imposed restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

Case conference endorsement in a civil action involving claims against a provincial gaming corporation and casino operators.

The court issued procedural directions concerning case management, amendments to pleadings, disclosure of expert reports, production of medical records, and scheduling of future attendances.

The court declined to appoint a case management judge and set timelines for expert evidence and document production.

Directions were also given for any pre-trial motions to be brought before the same judge, with permission for counsel to attend by telephone.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault involving two separate young victims in 1983 and 1984.

The accused was a parish priest who abused his position of trust.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment with a concurrent 6-month sentence, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence.

The court found that general deterrence and denunciation required incarceration in a traditional setting despite mitigating factors including the accused's first-offender status, genuine remorse, guilty plea, and exemplary conduct as a priest since the offences.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought a review of a decision denying him bail pending trial under s. 680 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the detention order, finding that the applicant failed to show his detention was not justified on the primary ground.

The court noted his significant criminal record, history of breaching court orders, recent misconduct in jail, and an inadequate release plan.