Sevag Yeghoyan

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 accused was charged with three firearm-related offences: possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to s. 91(1), and possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized contrary to s. 92(1).

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence that a loaded handgun and ammunition were discovered by the accused's father under a mattress in the basement bedroom where the accused resided.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the firearm.

The court found that the accused's knowledge and control of the firearm was the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence and convicted on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault on the complainant arising from an incident on January 21, 2024.

The complainant alleged that while she was extremely intoxicated and lying on a couch in the defendant's brother's apartment, the defendant twice touched her inappropriately under her clothing without consent.

The defendant denied the allegations and testified that he had gone to bed and had no contact with the complainant.

The court found that while the complainant's credibility was not in question, the reliability of her identification of the defendant was suspect given the dark conditions, her extreme intoxication, and her half-closed eyes.

The court noted that other individuals in the apartment could have committed the alleged offence.

The charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's identity as the perpetrator.

The court sentenced Joshua Biernacki for trafficking in heroin, following a jury verdict acquitting him of manslaughter in the overdose death of Deborah Beer.

The decision reviews the tragic facts, the offender’s background, and the impact on the victim’s family.

The court analyzes the legal framework for sentencing, including the principles of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and considers the appropriateness of a conditional sentence.

Ultimately, the court imposes an 18-month conditional sentence followed by two years of probation, with ancillary orders, finding that a custodial disposition is required but can be served in the community given the circumstances.

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.

The defendant, John Bertrim, was found guilty of careless driving causing the death of a cyclist under the Highway Traffic Act.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the victim being a vulnerable cyclist and the defendant's inattention at an intersection, balanced against mitigating factors like the defendant's age, lack of criminal record, and good character.

The court emphasized general deterrence and proportionality, imposing a sentence of 14 days intermittent custody, a $5,000 fine, and a 2-year probation order with a driving prohibition, including exceptions for farm equipment and medical emergencies.

The defendant pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death after crossing a double solid yellow line and striking an oncoming vehicle head-on, killing the other driver.

At the time of the collision, the defendant's driver's licence had been suspended for 20 years, and he had an extensive record of driving offences.

The court emphasized deterrence and proportionality, sentencing the defendant to 75 days of intermittent custody, two years of probation, and a five-year driver's licence suspension.

J.M. was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of threatening his former wife.

The complainant and the defendant provided diametrically opposed testimonies.

The court assessed the credibility of both witnesses, noting some implausibilities in the complainant's account and a possible motive to fabricate related to ongoing family law proceedings.

While the complainant was generally believable, the implausibilities and motive to fabricate raised a reasonable doubt.

For the threatening count, the court found insufficient evidence to prove the required intent beyond a reasonable doubt, given the lack of surrounding circumstances.

J.M. was acquitted on all three counts.

The accused was found guilty of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a license, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The accused, a repeat offender with a prior firearms conviction, was carrying a loaded handgun in a backpack.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of carrying a loaded firearm in public and the accused's prior record against mitigating factors, including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A global sentence of six years was imposed, reduced by credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Daquon Dawkins, was charged with unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a license, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The trial involved a voir dire challenging the validity of search warrants obtained based on confidential informant information, applying the Garofoli "Step 6" procedure and Debot criteria.

The court upheld the warrants, finding the information to obtain (ITO) provided sufficient grounds and full, fair, and frank disclosure.

The central issue at trial was whether Dawkins had knowledge of the handgun found in a backpack he was carrying.

The court rejected Dawkins' exculpatory testimony as incredible and found him guilty of all charges, concluding that his knowledge of the firearm was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and common sense inferences.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay after his trial was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The total delay was 23.7 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the delay caused by the pandemic and the subsequent phased reopening of the courts constituted an exceptional circumstance, reducing the net delay to 16.2 months.

The court concluded the defence failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, and the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Michael Rodgers, a 24-year-old repeat offender with a severe drug addiction, pleaded guilty to six Criminal Code offences, including two counts of failing to stop for police, two counts of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, and breaches of probation and release orders.

The offences involved two separate police chases where he drove dangerously while prohibited.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his criminal record, disregard for court orders, and public safety risk, balanced against mitigating factors like his guilty plea, remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The primary issues were determining a fit global sentence and the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for harsh conditions due to prison lockdowns and COVID-19 quarantining.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months imprisonment, less 286 days of pre-sentence custody credit, followed by a one-year probation order and a 3-year driving prohibition.

The two accused were charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm following an incident in a van outside a party.

The Crown alleged the complainant was highly intoxicated, blacked out, and did not consent or lacked the capacity to consent to sexual intercourse with both men.

The accused gave statements to police claiming the sexual activity was consensual.

The trial judge rejected the accuseds' statements but found the complainant's evidence regarding her level of intoxication and blackouts insufficiently reliable to prove lack of subjective consent or lack of capacity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both accused were acquitted.

D.D. applied for a bail review, citing a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and trial delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that D.D. failed to satisfy the secondary and tertiary grounds for release.

The decision highlighted D.D.'s extensive criminal record, history of non-compliance with court orders, and the inadequacy of the proposed supervision plan.

The court concluded that the pandemic, while a relevant factor, did not outweigh the significant risk of reoffending and the necessity to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference, making child pornography, and accessing child pornography involving two young persons.

The Crown sought a nine-year penitentiary sentence with ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA, and section 161 prohibition orders.

The defence sought three to four years with a ten-year section 161 order.

The court imposed a six-year global sentence (five years for sexual interference and one year consecutive for child pornography offences), finding that the accused's conduct involved grooming, breach of trust, multiple victims, and significant harm.

The court was particularly concerned about the accused's lack of insight, blame-shifting, and moderate risk of re-offending.

The accused was sentenced for possession of child pornography and making intimate recordings without consent.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 10 months and 17 days of incarceration, followed by two years of probation.

The sentencing considered the accused's medical condition (epilepsy), institutional treatment concerns, and the need for rehabilitation through counselling.

A 10-year section 161 order and 20-year SOIRA registration were imposed.

The defendant was charged with two offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997: wilfully failing to inform the Board of a material change in circumstances and knowingly making a false or misleading statement in connection with a benefits claim.

The trial proceeded over multiple dates spanning from October 2016 to February 2019.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in trial.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that while the total delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months, certain delays were attributable to defence conduct and waiver, and an exceptional circumstance existed in the form of a discrete event (a pending Ontario Court of Appeal decision on a related matter involving the interpretation of the mens rea element of the offence).

After accounting for these factors, the remaining delay still exceeded the ceiling, and the court granted a stay of proceedings.

The accused, a youthful first offender and heroin addict, pleaded guilty to trafficking in a substance held out to be heroin.

He purchased what he believed was heroin for a friend who was experiencing withdrawal.

Unbeknownst to both, the substance was fentanyl, and the friend died of a fatal overdose.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought 13 months.

The court found exceptional circumstances, noting the accused was not a commercial drug dealer, had no knowledge the substance was fentanyl, and had made significant rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months' custody followed by 3 years' probation.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse its registration as a lottery retailer.

The Registrar's concerns related to the past conduct of the parents of the appellant's sole officer and director, who were found to be 'persons interested' in the business.

The Tribunal found that the parents exercised control over the business and that their past conduct, which included printing lottery tickets without a customer present and counselling a witness to lie to investigators, provided reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of registration was confirmed.