Samiyyah Ganga

Tyvon Whyte was found guilty of sexual assault after a contested trial.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The complainant, an aspiring model, was intoxicated by alcohol and cannabis supplied by Mr. Whyte during a photoshoot.

Mr. Whyte made non-consensual sexual advances, persisting despite the complainant's clear verbal and physical disengagement.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, breach of trust, coercion into suggestive photos, and the fact that Mr. Whyte was on an undertaking for a separate sexual assault at the time.

Mitigating factors included his lack of prior criminal history (absolute discharge expunged), youthfulness (25), strong community support, work history, and compliance with bail conditions.

The paramount sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence.

The court determined an appropriate sentence of six months jail, but converted it to a one-year conditional sentence order (CSO) with strict punitive conditions, followed by two years of probation and ancillary orders (SOIRA, DNA, weapons prohibition).

Neelkanth Shah, an 18-year-old first offender, was sentenced for three bank robberies committed in early 2021.

The robberies escalated in severity, with the final one involving an accomplice, brandished knives, an accidental injury to a police officer, and trauma to a bank teller.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the use of a knife and the amount stolen, and significant mitigating factors, including Shah's sincere remorse, rehabilitative efforts while on strict house arrest bail, and strong community support.

The Crown sought 3-4 years' incarceration, while the defence argued for 31 months, leading to an actual sentence of two years after credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

The accused, charged with sexual assault against his former spouse, sought directions on whether affidavits filed by the complainant in their family law proceedings constituted 'records' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued the affidavits contained personal information and required scrutiny under the s. 278 regime.

The court held that the affidavits were not records, as they were voluntarily filed in public adversarial proceedings, meaning the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in them.

Consequently, a s. 278.93 application was not required for their use.

This is a sentencing decision for Jonathan Wong, who pleaded guilty to three counts of voyeurism under s. 162.1(a) of the Criminal Code.

His conduct involved surreptitiously recording 174 unidentified persons, 7 identified victims, and one victim during sexual activity, over a period of 20 years (2001-2021).

The collection of voyeuristic files was described as the largest in Canadian history.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment for the general voyeurism counts and a consecutive 3 months for the sexual activity recording.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or 12 months imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, finding that a conditional sentence would be inadequate given the gravity, duration, and volume of the offences, and the significant impact on victims.

The judge imposed a total sentence of 18 months imprisonment, with the 3-month sentence for the sexual activity recording to be served concurrently, followed by 18 months probation.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault after striking the complainant, causing severe brain injuries.

He appealed his conviction on five grounds, primarily challenging the trial judge's self-defence analysis, including misapprehension of evidence, defensive purpose, reasonableness of actions, and application of R. v. W.(D.).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that the appellant's actions were not reasonable in the circumstances, particularly considering his role in initiating the confrontation and available alternatives.

The appellant appealed his conviction, primarily challenging the lawfulness of a strip search conducted in the presence of a female officer, arguing it violated his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that exigent circumstances justified the female officer's continued involvement during the appellant's violent resistance, and that the evidence obtained from the search was admissible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences and sought leave to appeal his eight-year sentence.

The conviction appeal raised two issues: whether the trial judge reversed the burden of proof by using a 911 call to corroborate Crown evidence, and whether the trial judge erred by taking judicial notice of the time required to stash a firearm and move a vehicle.

The sentence appeal argued that the trial judge double-counted breaches of weapons prohibition orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of evidence or sentencing approach.

The accused, K.L., brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay in a sexual assault and exploitation case.

The total delay was 20 months and 13 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued the delay was an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the case's complexity (novel defence argument, s. 276 application).

The court found the Crown failed to demonstrate reasonable steps to mitigate the nine-month delay in providing initial disclosure.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments regarding complexity and the pandemic as a blanket excuse, concluding the delay was unreasonable and staying the charges against the accused.

The appellant, S.S., appealed a Superior Court decision that denied him a preliminary inquiry.

S.S. was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, offences whose maximum penalties were increased after the alleged commission date but before his election.

The central issue was whether entitlement to a preliminary inquiry under s. 535 of the Criminal Code, which requires an offence punishable by 14 years or more, should be determined by the penalty at the time of the offence or at the time of the election.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the relevant maximum penalty is that which applied at the time of the offence, benefiting the accused under s. 11(i) of the Charter and s. 43(d) of the Interpretation Act.

The court also rejected the appellant's attempt to waive his Charter right to the lesser punishment to qualify for a preliminary inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed.