Stacey Sheehan

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of residential break-and-enter and one count of failing to comply with probation.

Despite an abysmal criminal record including manslaughter, the offender demonstrated remarkable rehabilitation over 871 days on bail, overcoming a severe drug addiction and establishing a pro-social life.

The court found that these exceptional circumstances warranted a departure from the usual penitentiary sentence to prioritize specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

The offender was sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day for the breach, followed by three years of probation, and received suspended sentences for the break-and-enters.

Two child protection cases were heard on the same date following the proclamation of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 into force on April 30, 2018.

The first case involved an 11-year-old autistic child brought into care due to the mother's inability to manage significant behavioural problems.

The second case involved an infant under two months old brought into care due to the mother's mental health concerns.

Both cases were at the case conference stage with adjournments granted to allow the Children's Aid Societies to develop service plans consistent with the new statutory purposes and to report back to the court.

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm after driving his vehicle head-on into another vehicle at excessive speed while impaired by alcohol and lorazepam.

The victim sustained severe, life-altering injuries including broken legs, crushed knee, and skull trauma.

The Crown sought 30 months imprisonment emphasizing general deterrence for otherwise law-abiding individuals.

The defence sought a suspended sentence or intermittent custody, highlighting the offender's psychological fragility, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed 18 months in reformatory followed by two years probation, finding general deterrence to be the predominant sentencing principle while considering the offender's lack of criminal record and psychological vulnerability.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault entered in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility by allegedly giving the complainant a “credibility handicap” and by applying different credibility standards to the complainant and the accused.

The court reviewed the applicable appellate standard under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code and the deference owed to trial-level credibility findings.

The court concluded that the trial judge properly applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework and conducted a detailed analysis of both the accused’s and the complainant’s evidence.

Finding no error in principle and no unreasonable verdict, the appeal was dismissed.