Stephen Howard Hebscher

Crown appeal from a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent following a guilty plea to possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material (CSAEM).

The respondent's collection comprised over 22,000 images and 741 videos depicting the sexual abuse of real children, accumulated over several years.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to recognize significant aggravating factors, including the number of child victims, the duration and frequency of the offending conduct, and active participation in the CSAEM subculture.

The sentencing judge further erred by failing to prioritize denunciation and deterrence, instead focusing unduly on the offender's personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal determined a 30-month custodial sentence was fit but declined to incarcerate the respondent at this stage, as he was halfway through his conditional sentence and resentencing would eliminate his three-year probation period.

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

The defendant, Georges Sarrouh, was charged with sexually assaulting his former employee, LM.

The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, LM, her brother CM, and the defendant.

The defence alleged that LM and CM were attempting to extort money from Sarrouh.

The court found LM and CM to be credible and reliable witnesses, while finding Sarrouh's account of extortion wanting.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Sarrouh sexually assaulted LM as described and found him guilty.

The accused, Richard Flaumenbaum, applied to stay proceedings for assault and sexual assault, alleging a violation of his Charter section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 22 months and 8 days, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial court.

The court analyzed periods of delay, attributing significant portions to late Crown disclosure of crucial evidence (complainant's second videotaped statement and legible SAEK notes) and institutional delay due to lack of court time.

The defence's mid-trial Mills application was deemed legitimate and not defence delay.

After deducting 29 days for defence delay (late arrival at JPT) and 60 days for an exceptional circumstance (Crown counsel's illness), the net delay remained 19 months and 6 days.

The court found a Charter violation and entered a stay of proceedings.

The defendant, charged with sexual assault, brought a motion for directions regarding the admissibility of text messages exchanged with the complainant.

The defence argued these messages, which depicted a different relationship dynamic, did not engage the Criminal Code's record screening regime (sections 278.92-94) as they lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Crown argued for caution regarding the complainant's privacy rights.

The court granted the defence motion, finding the text messages contained "mundane information" and thus did not meet the threshold for privacy under the record screening regime, allowing their potential introduction at trial without a formal application.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of voyeurism contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code, involving his 9-10 year old son.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's age, the significant breach of trust by a parent, and the location of the offence (the victim's bedroom).

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, no prior criminal record, and the defendant seeking professional counselling and psychiatric assessment, which indicated a very low risk of reoffending despite a diagnosis of pedohebephelic disorder.

The court emphasized the principles of deterrence and denunciation for the breach of trust, concluding that a conditional discharge or suspended sentence would be inappropriate.

A 60-day conditional sentence followed by 12 months probation was imposed, with specific conditions regarding house arrest, curfew, and contact with the victim and other minors.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing his female friend to death.

The Crown sought a 14-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including intimate partner violence, breach of trust, the savage nature of the killing, and the offender's prior record for domestic violence.

However, the offender's severe mental illness at the time of the offence significantly reduced his moral blameworthiness.

Balancing these factors, the court set the period of parole ineligibility at 12 years.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after stabbing the victim 34 times in his basement.

The defence conceded the accused killed the victim but argued he was not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code due to severe paranoid delusions and schizophrenia.

The court found the accused suffered from a disease of the mind but rejected the NCR defence, concluding the defence failed to prove the delusions caused the killing or rendered the accused incapable of knowing the act was morally wrong.

The court also excluded similar fact evidence of the accused's prior violence against women.

Finding a reasonable doubt on the element of forcible confinement required for first-degree murder, the court convicted the accused of second-degree murder.

The accused, Richard Pereira, charged with first-degree murder, brought a directed verdict application to reduce the charge to second-degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence for first-degree murder based on forcible confinement under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code, but insufficient evidence for planned and deliberate murder under s. 231(2).

The application was dismissed, and the charge of first-degree murder based on forcible confinement proceeded.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 15-year-old passenger in his Uber vehicle.

The Crown sought 12 months jail; the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 90 days.

The court imposed 11.5 months jail structured as two consecutive sentences of 173 days each (plus 3 days presentence custody) to remain below the 6-month threshold that would trigger mandatory deportation consequences under immigration law.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for offences involving children, and noted the defendant's lack of remorse, empathy, and insight into his conduct as aggravating factors.

The defendant, an Uber driver aged 29, was charged with three offences: Sexual Assault contrary to s. 271, Invitation to Sexual Touching contrary to s. 152, and Sexual Interference contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant had just turned 15 years old at the time of the incident.

The defendant picked up the complainant and two friends at a gala dance event in Oshawa in May 2016.

During the drive, the defendant initiated sexual contact by touching the complainant's penis in the front seat.

Subsequently, sexual contact occurred in the back seat of the vehicle.

The defendant was found guilty on all three counts.

The court rejected the defendant's mistake of age defence, finding that the defendant did not honestly believe the complainant was over 16 years of age and failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age.

The accused was charged with invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference against his daughter between July 10, 2014 and December 23, 2014.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial turned on the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's testimony.

The court found the complainant to be both credible and reliable despite certain inconsistencies in her evidence, which were assessed in light of her age and the distinction between credibility and reliability.

The court rejected the defence argument that the complainant had fabricated the allegations or learned about sexual acts from other sources.

The court found the Crown had proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all charges.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of importing approximately 2.9 kilograms of cocaine hidden in his suitcase.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a sentence of five and a half years, which is below the usual range of six to eight years for first-time importers.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding that the offender's severe cognitive deficits and the certainty of his deportation to Guyana were unusual mitigating circumstances that justified a departure from the usual range.

The offender was sentenced to five and a half years in custody, less pre-sentence custody credit.

A 17-year-old youth pleaded guilty to four counts of internet luring, one count of possession of child pornography, and eleven counts of extortion.

The offences occurred over a two-and-a-half-month period between May and August 2014, involving the solicitation of explicit images from minors via Facebook and subsequent threats to publish those images unless additional images were provided.

The youth targeted vulnerable victims, including a 12-year-old, a 13-year-old, and a 15-year-old autistic girl.

The court imposed a custodial sentence with conditions addressing the serious nature of the offences, the youth's lack of remorse and insight, and his pattern of breaching court orders.