Stuart Rothman

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.

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.

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.

R.A. was convicted of two counts of sexual interference against his 11-year-old stepdaughter, C.A. The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust and multiple incidents, and mitigating factors, such as R.A.'s pro-social life and lack of criminal record.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences.

Despite the defence's request for a conditional sentence and potential deportation consequences, the court found a non-custodial sentence would be insufficient.

R.A. was sentenced to two years in penitentiary on the more serious count, concurrent to six months on the other, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

Quoc Tran was convicted of possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000, stemming from a scheme where he received $291,459.12 through fraudulent credit card product returns orchestrated by a friend.

The court found his claim of unawareness fabricated.

In sentencing, the court considered aggravating factors, including the large sum and protracted nature of the fraud, and mitigating factors, such as Tran's lack of criminal record, pro-social life, and family responsibilities.

The court imposed a 2-year less a day conditional sentence, 2 years' probation, and a stand-alone restitution order of $291,459.12, finding it consistent with sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation without requiring incarceration.

Quoc Tran was charged with possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000.

The charges stemmed from a scheme where Mr. Tran's friend, Mr. Ha, defrauded his employer and repaid a purported loan to Mr. Tran using fraudulently obtained funds credited to Mr. Tran's credit cards.

The court found Mr. Tran's explanations regarding his lack of knowledge about the fraud to be incredible, citing inconsistencies in his testimony, his financial sophistication, and his unquestioning acceptance of unusual repayment methods.

The court concluded that Mr. Tran either knew of the fraud or was wilfully blind to it, establishing the mens rea for both charges.

Mr. Tran was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood following a single-vehicle rollover on Highway 427.

The Crown proceeded on both counts.

The defence challenged the arrest on reasonable and probable grounds and brought Charter applications alleging violations of sections 7 and 8 regarding video surveillance of the accused urinating in a police cell.

The trial judge found the arrest was lawful and dismissed the Charter applications, finding that although a privacy breach occurred, the police had provided adequate notice and privacy protection measures.

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of the over-80 offence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud over $5,000, having defrauded her employer, the Toronto Dominion Bank, of $1,778,543.57 over approximately 14 years while employed as a senior manager with authority over internal accounts.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while defence counsel sought a lengthy conditional sentence with probation.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 17 months (14 months on count 1 and 3 months consecutive on count 2), rejecting a conditional sentence despite significant mitigating factors including full restitution, guilty plea, and evidence of major depressive illness.

The court also imposed a five-year employment prohibition under section 380.2.

During a jury trial for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, the accused brought a Corbett application seeking to exclude his criminal record from being used in cross-examination should he testify.

The court considered the Corbett factors including the nature, similarity, and remoteness of prior convictions and the impact on trial fairness.

The judge held that the adult convictions could be used in cross-examination because the case turned largely on credibility and excluding the record would create a misleading impression for the jury.

However, the accused’s youth conviction was excluded due to its remoteness and the prejudicial impact associated with youth offences.

Following convictions for criminal harassment and breaches of probation, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the offender’s extensive criminal history including numerous sexual offences, violent offences, and repeated breaches of court orders, as well as psychiatric assessments diagnosing schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury, paraphilias, and substance abuse disorders.

Expert evidence established a high risk of future sexual violence and persistent failure to restrain behaviour.

The court concluded the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met under both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii).

The offender failed to establish that community management would adequately protect the public, and the court imposed a penitentiary sentence followed by long‑term supervision.