Samantha Saunders

The defendant was convicted after a judge-alone trial of sexual luring contrary to s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant communicated in graphic and sexually explicit terms with a fictional 14-year-old girl named Danae over a four-day period in October 2016, arranged to meet with her for sexual activity, and was caught in a sting operation conducted by a citizens' organization called Creepbusters.

At the time of the offence, the defendant was an elementary school teacher and girls volleyball coach.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 to 4 years.

The defendant sought a conditional sentence or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a 3-year penitentiary sentence along with ancillary orders including DNA sampling, a 10-year firearms prohibition, 20-year SOIRA registration, and a 10-year s. 161 order restricting employment with minors and internet use.

The defendant was convicted of child luring on December 30, 2024, and subsequently applied for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the laying of the information on March 16, 2022, to the conclusion of trial on October 24, 2024, was 31 months and 8 days, exceeding the presumptive 30-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

However, the court attributed 187 days of delay to the defence, reducing the net delay to approximately 25 months, which falls below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to raise the section 11(b) issue in a timely manner, only doing so on the final day of trial, and demonstrated an indifferent attitude toward expediting the proceedings.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered whether Daniel Pestill should be declared a high-risk accused following a finding of not criminally responsible for the death of Michael Ryan, and also determined the appropriate sentence for various drug and firearm offences.

The court reviewed expert psychiatric evidence, statutory criteria, and relevant case law, ultimately designating Pestill as a high-risk accused and imposing a six-year sentence for the drug and gun offences, to be served in a hospital.

The decision includes detailed analysis of the factors for high-risk designation and the principles of sentencing for serious drug and firearm offences.

The accused, J.B., was charged with sexual luring under s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that J.B. communicated with a person he believed to be under 16 years old (a fictitious 14-year-old created by "Creep Hunters") for the purpose of facilitating sexual interference.

The court found the evidence of the "chatter" (B.M.) and the "Creep Hunters" volunteer (W.V.) highly credible and reliable.

Circumstantial evidence, including data from the accused's phone and his presence at the planned meetup location, overwhelmingly established his identity and intent.

The court rejected the defence's arguments regarding altered screenshots and the honest belief in the victim's age.

J.B. was found guilty.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose against the defendant, the complainant's stepfather.

The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's and the accused's evidence, as there was no independent corroboration.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, particularly between her initial police statement and later statements/trial evidence, and accepted a defence witness's evidence that the complainant had expressed a desire to fabricate allegations to remove the accused from the home.

Despite concerns about the accused's credibility due to his criminal record and poor judgment, the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence raised a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all charges.

The defendant, C.M., was charged with 24 sexual assault-related offences involving five complainants, all young female servers at his breakfast restaurant.

After some charges were stayed or dismissed, the court proceeded with 17 remaining counts.

The judgment meticulously analyzes the credibility and reliability of each complainant's testimony, considering factors such as "motive not to fabricate" and the potential for "tainted memory" from discussions among complainants.

The court found C.M. not guilty on most counts due to reasonable doubt, often influenced by contradictory defense evidence or concerns about the reliability of the complainants' memories.

However, C.M. was found guilty on four counts of sexual assault related to three complainants (V.F., E.R., and R.R.), where contemporaneous disclosure of the assaults provided sufficient reliability.

Sexual exploitation charges were dismissed due to insufficient proof of mens rea regarding the complainants' ages.

The accused applied for a bail review after being detained on serious firearms and drug charges.

The police had found handguns, ammunition, and drugs in a secret compartment in a vehicle primarily driven by the accused.

The accused argued the justice of the peace erred in law and that a new release plan and a reduction in the alleged weight of fentanyl constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no error by the justice of the peace and concluding that the new evidence did not materially alter the tertiary ground for detention.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal to trial on charges of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000, while consenting to committal on a breach of recognizance charge.

The court found that the preliminary inquiry judge made a jurisdictional error by committing the applicant on the possession and proceeds of crime charges, as there was a complete absence of evidence to reasonably infer knowledge and control of the items found in the vehicle's trunk.

The court determined that the inference drawn by the preliminary inquiry judge was based on speculation rather than reasonable evidence.

However, the court dismissed the application to quash the committal for breach of recognizance, finding sufficient evidence to support the inference that the applicant was not residing at his specified address.

Damion Stewart, charged with possession of fentanyl for trafficking, brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude evidence seized from his car and person.

He argued infringements of ss. 8 and 9, asserting lack of grounds for investigative detention, a de facto arrest without reasonable and probable grounds, and an unreasonable search.

The court found reasonable suspicion for investigative detention, and that the manner of detention and search were justified by officer safety concerns, particularly due to non-compliance and observed reaching under the seat.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, Jevanny Walters, Collin Walters, and Raymond Ellis, were charged with unlawful confinement and robbery stemming from two separate incidents at a gaming house.

Jevanny Walters and Raymond Ellis were charged in connection with the first robbery, and all three were charged in relation to the second.

The Crown conceded that unlawful confinement was not established for the second robbery.

The primary issue was the identification of the perpetrators, relying on surveillance footage, cell phone records, and similar act evidence.

The court found Jevanny Walters guilty on all remaining counts (1, 2, and 4) and Collin Walters guilty on Count 4.

Raymond Ellis was acquitted on all counts (1, 2, and 4), as the court found a reasonable doubt regarding his possession and use of a key cell phone at the time of the robberies, despite circumstantial evidence.

The applicant, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought pre-trial motions seeking the exclusion of evidence discovered during a vehicle search and utterances made to police.

The applicant alleged violations of her rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, as well as racial profiling and involuntary statements.

The court found the utterances were voluntary and dismissed the racial profiling claim.

While the court found a minor s. 10(b) breach due to a six-minute delay in providing the right to counsel, it held the initial detention was authorized under the Highway Traffic Act and the subsequent search of the vehicle and purse was authorized under the Liquor Licence Act.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.