Stephen Proudlove

Following convictions for manslaughter by failing to provide the necessaries of life to a child, a publication ban had been imposed under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code protecting the identities of surviving siblings and information that could identify them.

A media organization sought to narrow or vary the ban, while counsel for the convicted parents requested the appointment of amicus curiae to advance the interests of the affected children.

The Crown ultimately supported narrowing the ban but took no position on the appointment of amicus.

The court considered competing interests between freedom of expression and the protection of vulnerable children.

The court appointed a child advocacy legal clinic as amicus curiae to assist in determining the proper scope of the publication ban before sentencing.

The offender was sentenced for four counts of aggravated sexual assault, one count of forcible confinement, and one count of assault.

The offender, who knew he was HIV positive, engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with multiple women without disclosing his status.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender infected one of the complainants with HIV.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years, reduced to 5 years and 4 months after applying a 1.5-to-1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to two intimate partners before engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse.

He was also charged with assault and forcible confinement of one of the partners.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that he had disclosed his status, finding it fabricated and inconsistent with his medical records and statements to public health nurses.

The court accepted the partners' evidence that they would not have consented to unprotected sex had they known of his HIV status.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with perjury for making false statements during a bail hearing on April 5, 2013.

The accused testified that his twin brother and a friend, rather than himself, had been operating his motor vehicle on four separate dates in 2012 when he was under a driving suspension.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person operating the vehicle on all four dates through consistent and credible police officer testimony.

The court found that the accused knew the statements were false and intended them to mislead the court regarding his credibility and willingness to comply with court orders.

The accused was convicted of perjury.