Tamara Jackson

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced S.T. to 8 months imprisonment for sexual assault of his spouse, with additional consecutive and concurrent sentences totaling 30 days for breaches of court orders.

The court considered aggravating factors including the violation of a position of trust, persistence despite victim resistance, and the significant psychological impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included S.T.'s lack of prior record, remorse for breaches, employment history, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to concerns about compliance and the seriousness of the offence.

A 10-year SOIRA order, DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition were also imposed.

Barbara Kennedy pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for strangling her roommate, Terri Johnson, who was physically vulnerable.

The court considered aggravating factors including the breach of trust inherent in the roommate relationship, the killing in the victim's home, the inhumane disposal of the body, and initial concealment efforts.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, and the offender's advanced age.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 14 to 15 years, while the defence sought the minimum of 10 years.

The court imposed a life sentence with 12 years of parole ineligibility, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles.

The defendant, Kale Wardlaw, was convicted of 11 offences, including six counts of sexual assault and five counts of assault, against his intimate partner over a two-year relationship.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the numerous, serious, and violent nature of the offences, the abuse of trust, and the devastating victim impact, alongside mitigating factors including the defendant's lack of a related criminal record, community support, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years imprisonment, along with a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a lifetime SOIRA order, and a no-contact order with the victim.

Brandon Crystal was found guilty of two assaults and one sexual assault against his girlfriend, Ms. P.D., and one count of failing to appear.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, victim vulnerability due to intoxication, and lack of remorse, alongside mitigating factors such as his first-offender status, rehabilitation efforts (sobriety, employment, counselling), and Gladue considerations related to his Indigenous ancestry and childhood trauma.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence while balancing rehabilitation and the principle of restraint.

A sentence of 22 months custody for sexual assault, concurrent suspended sentences for assaults and failure to appear, and 3 years probation with specific conditions was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with impaired driving (by alcohol) and over 80 mg/100 mL of blood.

The trial involved multiple Charter applications including a section 11(b) unreasonable delay application, sections 8 and 9 arbitrary detention and unreasonable search applications, and a section 10(b) right to counsel breach arising from the inadvertent audiotaping of the accused's call with duty counsel.

The court found no breach of section 11(b) rights, no breach of sections 8 and 9 rights, but did find a breach of section 10(b) rights.

However, applying the section 24(2) analysis, the court admitted the breath test evidence.

The accused was convicted of impaired care or control but acquitted of the over 80 charge due to reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the breath technician's evidence concerning the alcohol standard used to calibrate the Intoxilyzer.

The defendant was charged with assault and sexual assault arising from incidents occurring between April 30 and May 7, 2017.

The defendant and complainant were in an on-again, off-again intimate relationship.

The defendant attended the complainant's residence unannounced and intoxicated, conducted surreptitious surveillance of the complainant, forced his way into her apartment, and engaged in a series of assaults and sexual assaults over several hours.

The complainant ultimately acquiesced to sexual intercourse after being subjected to persistent coercive conduct.

The defendant claimed the complainant consented or that he held an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court found the defendant guilty of all charges, determining that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant's conduct created a climate of coercion that vitiated any notion of true voluntary consent.

The defendant was charged with three counts of assault and one count of assault with a weapon against his domestic partner.

The Crown's case rested primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who alleged multiple incidents of domestic violence including a serious assault in June 2016 where the defendant allegedly choked her.

The defendant provided alternative accounts of the incidents.

The court found the complainant to be articulate and intelligent but noted significant inconsistencies in her statements to police, medical staff, and at trial.

The defendant's evidence, while not entirely credible, was not sufficiently rejected to meet the criminal burden of proof.

The court acquitted the defendant on all counts, finding reasonable doubt existed on each allegation.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of breaking and entering into dwelling homes contrary to section 348(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender committed a series of break-ins into residential homes over a one-month period, targeting vulnerable victims and stealing property of significant value.

The offender had an extensive criminal history including 12 prior break and enter convictions and was on parole at the time of the offences.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with restitution orders totaling $28,076.54 and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The accused brought a pre-trial application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of break and enter and possession of property obtained by crime.

The search warrant was obtained based on evidence that a stolen iPhone from a break and enter had been located near the accused's residence using Apple's "Find my iPhone" application.

The accused argued the warrant was invalid due to stale information and lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court rejected both facial and sub-facial challenges to the warrant, finding that the investigating officer had taken adequate investigative steps to establish reasonable grounds and that the warrant could have been issued by the justice of the peace.

The accused was convicted after trial on 16 counts of fraud arising from his involvement in billing practices at his employer, Attersley Tire, which fraudulently invoiced Highland Trucking for promotional gifts totaling $17,353.00.

The court found that while the accused participated in the scheme, the fraud was orchestrated and encouraged by Attersley Tire and its management.

The accused received only indirect benefits through job retention.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding that general deterrence carried less weight than the accused's personal circumstances, positive pre-sentence report, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court rejected restitution as a probation term given that the victim company showed no interest in recovery and the funds remained with Attersley Tire.

The defendant was charged with four counts of threatening to kill the complainant, his wife, and two children on March 18, 2013.

The complainant was the defendant's supervising professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT).

The defendant claimed the reverse was true—that the complainant had threatened him.

After hearing evidence from four witnesses and reviewing numerous exhibits, the court found the defendant guilty.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as inconsistent with his conduct and accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and corroborated by his actions.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The incident occurred when the defendant, having consumed 10-12 drinks, drove at excessive speed through a residential area and collided with trees and a light post, injuring his passenger.

The defendant fled the scene and fabricated a false story to police.

The Crown sought 8-12 months incarceration; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, considering the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and significant cognitive impairments resulting from a prior brain injury, while balancing denunciation and deterrence objectives.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and "Over 80".

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the police officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to stop the vehicle and arrest the accused.

The officer's observations of driving behaviour were unreliable, his inference regarding the accused's direction of travel was unsupportable, and he failed to use available investigative tools such as an Approved Screening Device.

The court found breaches of both sections 8 and 9 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under section 24(2), resulting in acquittals on both charges.