Ryan Garry Gibson

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm to her nephew following a trial.

The Crown sought imprisonment of 21-30 days followed by two years probation.

The defence sought a suspended sentence with one year probation or alternatively a conditional sentence.

The court imposed 21 days imprisonment followed by two years probation, rejecting both a conditional sentence and suspended sentence as inconsistent with the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence required for unprovoked violence causing bodily harm.

The court found the assault was serious, unprovoked, involved a weapon, and the defendant showed no remorse or insight into her actions.

The offender was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm after striking her nephew in the head with a beer bottle in an unprovoked attack.

The Crown sought 21 to 30 days of imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or conditional sentence.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing and the criteria for a conditional sentence, concluding that the seriousness of the unprovoked, weapon-based assault required actual incarceration to satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 21 days in jail followed by two years of probation.

Following a trial, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor victim.

The defendant also pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching his recognizance of bail.

The court imposed a sentence of 4½ years imprisonment for the sexual offences, followed by an additional 90 days imprisonment for the breaches, to be served consecutively.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, lifetime sex offender registration, a 10-year prohibition on employment or volunteering with persons under 16, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a prohibition on communication with the victim during the custodial portion of the sentence.

A costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The applicant sought $15,000 in costs (60% of total costs claimed of $24,000), while the respondent argued for $4,000.

The applicant was largely successful in obtaining the relief sought, including the precise table amount of support, nearly all of the post-secondary contribution, and a considerable amount of arrears.

The court awarded $15,000 in costs, finding the applicant acted reasonably by making two reasonable offers to settle that came very close to the ultimate result, while the respondent acted unreasonably by failing to make any offer to settle, failing to make timely disclosure, and taking unreasonable positions on multiple issues.

Motion to change child support provisions of a December 7, 2011 order.

The applicant sought increased table support and arrears of post-secondary education expenses.

The respondent sought reduced support, termination of support effective April 30, 2015, and credits for overpayments.

The court varied the order to establish new table support amounts based on imputed income, calculated arrears of support, and ordered prospective contributions to post-secondary education expenses.

The court declined to determine whether support should continue beyond the child's first degree, finding the evidence premature and insufficient.