Stuart Rothman

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and unlawful confinement against his daughter's young friend.

The trial turned on credibility, with the accused denying the allegations and presenting evidence of his work schedule and the presence of others in the apartment.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, noting he had submitted a forged employment letter during the trial.

The court found the child complainant's evidence credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies, concluding the Crown proved all charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following convictions for child pornography offences, the Crown sought a dangerous offender assessment and obtained the offender's correctional records.

The offender brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing the Crown breached its section 7 Charter obligations by failing to disclose these records prior to trial.

The court found a technical breach of the disclosure obligation because the records contained mental health diagnoses that were not clearly irrelevant to the trial.

However, the application was dismissed because the non-disclosure did not impact the offender's right to make full answer and defence, as the records only related to the voluntariness of a statement the Crown did not adduce at trial.

The offender, a 21-year-old student Early Childcare Assistant, was found guilty of assaulting a 17-month-old child in her care by pulling a chair out from under the child, causing a cut lip that required stitches.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of breach of trust and vulnerability of the victim against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, significant background of trauma, and strong rehabilitative efforts.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation, finding it in the offender's best interest and not contrary to the public interest.

The accused was tried on two assault counts arising from a domestic altercation in which he took the complainant's smartphone and used force while attempting to leave her apartment.

The central issue was whether the Crown disproved self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt under s. 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the complainants credible, rejected the accused's minimizing account, and held that his purpose was to retain the phone containing alleged evidence of infidelity rather than to defend himself.

The court further held that the force used against both complainants was unreasonable and disproportionate in the circumstances.

Guilty findings were entered on both assault counts.

The accused was charged with ten offences related to child pornography and breaches of a section 161 order, all stemming from items found on a cellular telephone seized during a search warrant execution.

The Crown alleged the accused possessed, accessed, and made available child pornography, made child pornography, committed sexual assault and sexual interference, and breached court orders.

The court found the accused guilty of possession and accessing child pornography, making child pornography available, making child pornography, and breaching a section 161 order regarding contact with minors.

The court acquitted on sexual assault and sexual interference due to the Crown's failure to prove the victim's identity as particularized in the information, and acquitted on other breach counts due to insufficient evidence.

This decision concerns the conviction of Tiena Lewin, an Early Childhood Educator student, for assaulting a 17-month-old child by pulling the chair the child was sitting on with sufficient force to cause injury.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of witnesses, particularly contrasting the testimony of a daycare assistant and the accused.

The judge applied the W.(D.) framework for assessing the accused’s testimony and found the Crown proved all elements of assault beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the accused’s version of events as not raising reasonable doubt.

The decision also addresses the application of the de minimis principle in criminal law, concluding the force used was neither trivial nor harmless.

The Crown applied to designate the offender as a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and one count of failing to comply with probation.

The offender, who had a lengthy history of domestic violence and non-compliance with court orders, argued for a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found that the statutory criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation were met under both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code.

Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no reasonable expectation that the offender's high risk of violent recidivism could be managed in the community, and sentenced him to an indeterminate period of detention.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual interference, voyeurism, and making child pornography arising from allegations involving his daughter.

The court held that the complainant's evidence on the sexual interference count was not sufficiently reliable to ground a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given contradictions with photographic evidence concerning timing, location, opportunity, and surrounding circumstances.

On the image-based counts, the Crown conceded the child pornography charge because there was no evidence of sexual purpose.

Applying the contextual privacy analysis from Jarvis, the court concluded that a father's alleged act of photographing his sleeping children in bed, absent sexual purpose or covert impropriety, did not amount to voyeurism under s. 162(1)(a).

The offender was convicted of human trafficking, aggravated assault, procuring, and related offences after forcing a sex trade worker to meet a daily quota and severely assaulting her when she complained.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the offender challenged the constitutionality of the five-year mandatory minimum under s. 279.01(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and sought a conditional sentence.

The court found it unnecessary to decide the constitutional issue, as the appropriate sentence was five and a half years imprisonment, considering the gravity of the offences, the offender's lack of a related record, and the impact of incarceration on his children.

The court also ordered a $15,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture and $15,000 in restitution.

Justin Europe, charged with human trafficking in January 2019, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay after his conviction.

The central issue was the effect of bringing the application late, after trial and conviction.

The court found that while lateness is not fatal per se, in this case, the applicant's conduct (opposing adjournment on delay grounds, scheduling and then abandoning a prior s. 11(b) application) constituted an implicit waiver of a significant period of delay (370 days from when trial dates were set to the end of trial).

After deducting this waived period and COVID-19 related delay, the net delay of 29.6 months fell below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Viktor Lipinski, serving a strict conditional sentence for impaired driving causing bodily harm, sought a variation of his house arrest terms to allow him to attend school and work.

The conditional sentence supervisor filed the application, which the Crown opposed.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on psychiatric evidence that the strict house arrest was exacerbating Lipinski's pre-existing mood disorder.

The court varied the sentence to allow exceptions for work and school to begin after eight months, rather than the original eighteen months, balancing the punitive objectives of the sentence with the need to prevent further deterioration of the offender's mental health.

The accused stood trial for multiple offences against his former wife, including dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, mischief, and sexual assault.

The charges arose from three separate incidents: a dispute over a car, a physical struggle over a cell phone, and an alleged sexual assault.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the car incident and sexual assault to be deliberately exaggerated or false, resulting in acquittals for dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, and sexual assault.

However, based on the accused's own evidence and corroborating video, the court found him guilty of assault causing bodily harm and mischief, rejecting his claims of defence of property and self-defence as his use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances.

This was a ten-day judge-alone criminal trial where the defendant, D.F., faced 28 counts of physical and sexual assault against his former partner, C.L., alleged to have occurred between 2008 and 2020.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, asserting that the complainant fabricated the allegations in the context of a family law dispute, particularly after learning he had a new partner.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be neither credible nor reliable, citing numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and the manipulation of text messages to falsely imply admissions from the defendant.

Conversely, the defendant's testimony was found credible and reliable.

The court dismissed all charges, concluding that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and explicitly stating belief in the defendant's account.

Uygar Kaan Celenk was convicted by a jury of possession of 1.35 kg of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and two firearm offences (possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm without a license/registration).

The Crown sought a 15-year prison sentence, while the Defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of fentanyl and the presence of a loaded prohibited firearm in a commercial vehicle, and mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, first-time offender status, rehabilitative potential, and childhood trauma.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, balanced with rehabilitation and restraint, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years imprisonment, with 1 year of credit for pre-trial custody and other factors, resulting in a remaining sentence of 12 years.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year firearm prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, charged with child pornography offences and breach of a conditional sentence, applied for release on a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a release plan involving two sureties, house arrest, and electronic monitoring.

The court found that the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention were met, given the accused's significant criminal record for similar offences, the substantial likelihood of reoffending, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was dismissed and continued detention was ordered.

This criminal trial concerned Justin Europe, who was charged with multiple offences related to human trafficking, procuring, receiving material benefits from sexual services, advertising sexual services, assault, aggravated assault, and threatening.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the complainant, L.G.'s, evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of human trafficking, procuring, receiving material benefits from human trafficking and sexual services, advertising sexual services, aggravated assault, and threatening death.

He was found not guilty of simple assault and threatening to kill a dog due to insufficient evidence.

The court emphasized the dynamics of the relationship, L.G.'s fear, and the accused's conduct in reinforcing that fear to profit from her work.

The accused, Justin Europe, charged with human trafficking and related offences, sought to cross-examine the complainant about her prior sexual activity.

The Crown argued that s. 276 of the Criminal Code applied, requiring a formal application.

The court, applying the doctrine of horizontal stare decisis, determined that s. 276 does not apply to human trafficking offences, following the precedent set in R. v. Williams, 2020 ONSC 206.

The court also rejected the common law requirement for a voir dire for such evidence.

While allowing questions about the complainant's involvement in the sex trade immediately prior to the alleged offences due to relevance to the "procuring" element, the court disallowed questions about her activities after the relationship ended, finding them to have marginal relevance.

The Crown brought an application to introduce evidence of other sexual activity by the complainant and a discreditable comment made by the accused, R.G., in a case where R.G. is charged with sexual interference of his stepdaughter.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this evidence under the principles of s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the evidence was not being introduced for "twin myth" reasons and was relevant to the accused's state of mind and whether he committed the actus reus.

The probative value of the evidence was determined to outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The Crown's application was granted, and the accused's comment was provisionally admissible, with a requirement for the Crown to bring a separate discreditable conduct application.

In a criminal proceeding involving allegations of sexual assault and probation breach, the Crown sought to admit text messages sent by the complainant to a friend as res gestae hearsay or alternatively as narrative evidence.

The court held that messages sent before the alleged assault were not instinctive responses to a triggering event, and that messages said to have been sent during or immediately after the alleged assault lacked sufficient independent indicia of reliability to satisfy the spontaneous utterance exception.

The court further held the texts were not essential narrative evidence and their admission would improperly circumvent the rule against prior consistent statements.

However, computer-generated timestamps and screenshot photographs were admitted, with the photographs authenticated under the Canada Evidence Act as electronic documents.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of breach of probation involving a 16-year-old complainant, SB, whom he believed to be his biological daughter.

The accused admitted to sexual touching on March 1, 2021, but denied vaginal penetration and claimed consent.

He denied any sexual activity on March 3, 2021.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding him not credible.

The court found that the sexual activity on March 1, 2021, included non-consensual vaginal intercourse, supported by SB's testimony and medical evidence of vaginal tearing.

The court also found that sexual touching occurred on March 3, 2021, despite the accused's denial, supported by SB's testimony and photographs.

The court emphasized that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and that any ostensible consent was vitiated by his abuse of a position of trust and authority over a vulnerable young person.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.