Stuart Woods

This decision concerns the sentencing of the defendant, P.H., who was convicted of one count of Sexual Interference involving a child victim, M.H., over multiple occasions when she was 3-4 years old.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the profound breach of trust, the victim's extreme vulnerability, the multiple incidents, and the use of physical force.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's status as a first-time offender for sexual offences, his struggles with addiction and mental health issues, and a low risk of sexual re-offending as supported by expert opinion and a decade without further sexual offences.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 3-4 years and a 20-year SOIRA order, while the Defence sought an upper reformatory term of 18-24 months and opposed the SOIRA order.

The court imposed a sentence of 2 years less a day imprisonment, followed by a two-year probation order, and various ancillary orders, but dismissed the request for a SOIRA order, finding it grossly disproportionate given the low risk of sexual recidivism.

This sentencing decision addresses three co-accused, James Bolan, Jarrett Jocko, and Gilbert Ryan Wilson, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling house.

The victim sustained severe, life-altering injuries from a premeditated and violent vigilante attack.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the extreme violence and premeditation, and mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, pre-sentence custody, and the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns (Duncan factors).

Gladue principles were applied for the Indigenous offenders, Bolan and Jocko.

The court rejected the defence's request for time served, imposing a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment for aggravated assault and 1 year concurrent for unlawful entry, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included DNA orders, lifetime firearms prohibitions (with sustenance hunting exception for Indigenous offenders), and no-contact orders with the victim and a co-accused.

The accused applied for release from custody under a section 525 bail detention review.

He had been detained on secondary grounds and proposed a release plan without a surety, relying on community services and his own good intentions.

The court found the plan insufficient to address the secondary ground concerns given the accused's lengthy criminal record and history of breaching court orders.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code seeking an order to allow three police witnesses to testify remotely via videoconference rather than in person at the courthouse.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, over 80, and possession of marijuana, and had brought a Charter application alleging multiple breaches of rights.

The defence opposed the remote testimony application, arguing that the officers' evidence was contentious and credibility was in issue.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that COVID-19 constituted exceptional circumstances justifying remote testimony, provided that the quality of audio and video transmission would not jeopardize the fairness of the hearing.

The court imposed ten conditions on the remote testimony, including that only one witness be present in the boardroom at a time, that witnesses use headphones, and that witnesses not communicate with each other until all testimony was complete.

The accused was arrested for assault with a weapon (a pellet gun) and declined to speak with counsel.

Upon release, he was additionally charged with discharging a firearm, an offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence, but was not re-advised of his right to counsel regarding this new, more serious charge.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude a subsequent statement made to police.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the new charge constituted a fundamental and discrete change in jeopardy, violating the accused's s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the statement under s. 24(2).