Siobhain Wetscher

Tamara Lich and Christopher Barber were convicted of mischief arising from their leadership roles in the Freedom Convoy, which gridlocked Ottawa from January 29 to February 18, 2022.

Barber was additionally convicted of counselling others to disobey a Court Order.

The Crown sought unprecedented custodial sentences of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber.

The defence sought absolute discharges or non-custodial dispositions.

The court imposed conditional sentences of 18 months for Barber (concurrent with 3 months for the counselling conviction) and 15.5 months for Lich (after crediting 74 days pre-sentence custody), with strict conditions including house arrest, curfews, and community service.

The court rejected both the Crown's punitive approach and the defence's request for discharges, finding that conditional sentences with onerous conditions could achieve denunciation and deterrence while respecting principles of proportionality and restraint.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions on two counts of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment.

The appellant, a massage therapist, was convicted of sexually assaulting a client during a massage therapy session on April 24, 2018.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally and inappropriately touched the complainant's breasts and vaginal area.

The trial judge accepted the complainant's testimony over the appellant's defence that any contact was accidental and part of legitimate treatment.

The appeal raised three grounds: failure to reconcile material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, uneven scrutiny applied to the appellant's evidence compared to the complainant's, and insufficient reasons regarding the essential elements of sexual assault.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The court sentenced Chawn Lemieux for second-degree murder following a public shooting in Ottawa.

The decision reviews the statutory and case law considerations for setting the period of parole ineligibility, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character of the offender, jury recommendations, and victim impact statements.

After reviewing comparable case law, the court imposed a life sentence with 16 years of parole ineligibility, emphasizing the aggravating factors of public danger, prior record, and use of a firearm, while also considering Lemieux’s youth, difficult upbringing, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Juteah Downey was convicted of 16 human trafficking-related offenses involving four vulnerable complainants.

The Crown sought an 18-year global sentence, while the defence proposed 4-8 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Downey's prior human trafficking conviction, multiple victims, violence, and the sophisticated nature of his operation.

Mitigating factors were minimal.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced from an initial calculation of 26 years to respect the totality principle, with credit for pre-trial custody.

Ancillary orders for DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication were granted, but a restitution order was denied due to quantification difficulties and the accused's limited ability to pay.

The Crown applied to revoke the accused's bail on secondary and tertiary grounds following his conviction for 12 counts of human trafficking related offences.

The Crown relied on the accused's prior human trafficking conviction, historical and recent breaches of court orders, and new uncharged breaches involving recruitment of models and entertainers.

The defence argued the accused had complied with conditions and the new breach evidence was unreliable.

The court found the accused's detention warranted on both secondary grounds (substantial likelihood of re-offending given his history, nature of offences, and continued recruitment activities) and tertiary grounds (to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, considering the gravity of the offences, the strength of the case post-conviction, and the likelihood of a lengthy penitentiary sentence).

The court vacated the previous release order and ordered the accused's detention.

The Appellant appealed convictions for assault with a weapon and sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to address significant inconsistencies in the Complainant's evidence and by applying a stricter level of scrutiny to the Appellant's evidence.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, the credibility findings were entitled to deference, and no uneven scrutiny of evidence occurred.

The court affirmed that a trial judge is not required to reconcile every minor inconsistency or explicitly address every argument, provided the reasons demonstrate an intelligible and logical path to the conclusion.