S. O’Neill

L.P., a young person, was found guilty of sexually assaulting H.B. The Crown sought a six-month custody and supervision order, 12 months probation, a two-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The defence argued for a probation order.

The court found the sexual assault to be a violent offence causing serious bodily harm, opening the gateway for a custodial sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

Considering L.P.'s lack of remorse and insight into the harm caused, the court imposed a six-month custody and supervision order (four months open custody, two months community supervision) followed by 18 months probation, a two-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused, Jaheim Allen-Brown, was convicted of aggravated assault after a trial, for viciously beating his girlfriend, Ms. Greentree, causing lasting disfiguring injuries.

Despite the victim's perjury, overwhelming evidence proved the assault.

Allen-Brown also breached non-communication conditions while in custody.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4-5 years incarceration, while the defence sought 12 months less time served.

The court considered Allen-Brown's youth, difficult background, extensive youth criminal record, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions (including being shot and subsequent inadequate medical care in jail).

The court applied sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, parity, and restraint, and considered the impact of anti-Black racism as per R. v. Morris.

While acknowledging the offence warranted a penitentiary sentence of 4-5 years without mitigation, the court imposed a sentence of two years less one day incarceration to allow for a three-year probation period, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The Crown applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the accused on charges of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was a passenger in a vehicle where a bag containing two kilograms of methamphetamine was found.

The reviewing court held that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by weighing competing inferences rather than drawing the inference most favourable to the Crown regarding joint possession, and by failing to consider the whole of the circumstantial evidence.

The application was granted, the discharge quashed, and mandamus issued directing committal for trial.

Anthony Jallim was sentenced for armed robbery and residence invasion.

The court imposed a four-year concurrent incarceration sentence, acknowledging his youth, early acceptance of responsibility, and the offence being at the lower end of the spectrum for such crimes.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, a 10-year weapons prohibition (lifetime for certain items), and a no-contact order with victims.

Victim surcharges were waived.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after striking and kicking the victim in the face, causing severe injuries including a broken jaw and orbital bone.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence less pre-trial custody, while the defence sought time served.

The court considered the offender's guilty plea, pre-trial custody conditions, and house arrest as mitigating factors, but found the gravity of the offence and the offender's prior record required a custodial sentence.

The offender was sentenced to 1 year in custody less 307 days credit, plus probation, a weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and restitution of $14,296.63.

The applicant, Omar James, charged with drug trafficking, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant and seeking exclusion of evidence.

The application alleged violations of his s. 8 Charter right due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO), unauthorized video surveillance in a common hallway, improper acquisition of rental car information, non-disclosure of material information in the ITO, and failure to satisfy the Debot test for confidential informants.

The court dismissed the application, finding no s. 8 Charter breach and, alternatively, that the evidence would have been admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant, W.P., was charged with five counts including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, making sexually explicit material available to a child, and uttering a death threat, against an eight-year-old boy, C.C. The trial judge assessed the credibility and reliability of C.C.'s evidence, noting inconsistencies, the problematic manner in which police elicited allegations through leading questions, and the malleability of C.C.'s narrative.

The court applied the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the special considerations for child witnesses but ultimately finding C.C.'s evidence unreliable.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

During her trial for drug trafficking, the accused sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence regarding battered woman syndrome to support her defence of duress.

The Crown opposed the admission, arguing the evidence was unreliable and unnecessary.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and found the evidence relevant to whether the accused had a safe avenue of escape.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, holding that the evidence was sufficiently reliable and remained necessary to dispel myths and stereotypes about domestic violence.

The expert evidence was ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police responded to a 'check welfare' 911 call about a person slumped over a steering wheel in a parked car.

Police boxed in the vehicle, woke the accused, and searched her purse without consent, finding drugs.

The court found the detention was arbitrary and the search violated section 8 of the Charter, as there was no suspected criminal activity and the accused showed no signs of medical distress once awake.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the drug evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his spouse during a period when he was on a weekend hospital pass while receiving psychiatric treatment.

The defence argued the accused lacked the mens rea for sexual assault due to an honest but mistaken belief in consent arising in the context of a long marriage and the complainant’s failure to verbally refuse.

The court rejected this argument, holding that under s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code an accused must take reasonable steps to ascertain consent where circumstances raise doubt.

The court accepted the complainant’s testimony and found the accused guilty of sexual assault under s. 271.

After conviction, psychiatric evidence established the accused suffered from bipolar disorder and likely failed to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions, resulting in a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.