Tamarin M. Dunnet

B.L.P. pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine aggravating facts for sentencing, specifically whether a knife was used during the assault on the complainant, A.W. The court assessed conflicting testimonies from the complainant and the accused, along with physical evidence.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and the accused's inconsistent, concluding that the aggravating facts, including the use of a knife, were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Daniel Stojanovski and Darko Stojanovski, were found guilty by a jury of attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

The charges stemmed from a cold-blooded shooting in a residential neighbourhood that left the victim, Nassundu Williams, an incomplete quadriplegic.

The Crown sought a life sentence, while the defence proposed 12 to 15 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of loaded handguns in a populated area and the catastrophic harm to the victim, and mitigating factors such as Darko Stojanovski being a first offender and both accused having family support and taking rehabilitative steps during pre-sentence detention.

Enhanced credit for pre-sentence detention, including additional credit for harsh lockdown conditions, was granted.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives.

The accused, E.G.F., was found guilty of sexual assault by a jury.

The sentencing judge considered the aggravating factors, including the accused's criminal record for violence, the assault occurring in the victim's home, the continued assault despite the victim's resistance, the serious nature of the assault (vaginal ejaculation without a condom), the exploitation of the victim's trust and vulnerable state due to alcohol withdrawal, and the severe emotional, physical, and financial impact on the victim.

The only mitigating factor noted was the accused's supportive network of friends.

The court imposed a four-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and issued several ancillary orders.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Eric Brown, concerning drug consumption and cell phone use prior to a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of Mr. Brown's Charter rights under ss. 10(a) and (b).

The court found that the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to the police's failure to caution Mr. Brown about the use of his statements and the full extent of his jeopardy, especially after the victim's death was known.

Furthermore, the court determined that Mr. Brown was detained when placed in the police vehicle and that the police breached his ss. 10(a) and (b) Charter rights by not promptly informing him of the reasons for his detention or his right to counsel, nor of the victim's death.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that the Charter-infringing conduct was serious, the impact on Mr. Brown's rights significant, and that admitting the statements would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, both the statements made to police and the recorded telephone conversation with his mother were excluded from evidence at trial.

Emiliana Piccinini, a legal assistant and bookkeeper, was charged with theft over $5000 and fraud over $5000 for allegedly receiving unauthorized excess payments disguised as payroll from her employer's law firm between 2011 and 2014.

Piccinini asserted these payments were authorized fees owed to her from a prior agreement.

The court found Piccinini's evidence to be internally inconsistent, unreliable, and unsupported by credible evidence or bank records, particularly regarding the alleged fee arrangement and her explanations for the numerous extra payments.

Conversely, the court accepted the employer's and accountant's testimony as credible and reliable.

Consequently, Piccinini was found guilty of fraud over $5000, with the theft charge conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, Conrey Zavier Francis, was charged with armed robbery, using an imitation firearm, and disguising his face in connection with two bank robberies on January 2, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification, security video footage, and text messages.

The court found significant inconsistencies in eyewitness descriptions of the perpetrator's height, weight, skin color, race, and the hand used to hold the weapon.

An in-dock identification was deemed unreliable.

The security videos were of poor quality, and the text messages were open to multiple interpretations.

Consequently, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's identity and acquitted him on all charges.

The applicant, Angelina Marie Codina, sought release on bail review, arguing a material change in circumstances since her previous detention order.

The changes included the staying of her breach of recognizance charges, the Court of Appeal setting aside a habeas corpus decision for inadequate reasons, and the duration of her pre-trial custody potentially exceeding a likely sentence for her immigration offences.

The Crown opposed release, citing the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's criminal record, and the potential for consecutive sentences.

The court found that the new factors, particularly the stayed charges and the extended pre-trial custody, constituted a material change in circumstances, rendering her continued detention no longer justified.

The accused was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking in Methylone, Ketamine, and Cannabis.

An application to exclude evidence under the Charter was dismissed.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, noting the commercial nature of the drug enterprise and the lack of significant mitigating factors.

A total sentence of 23 months incarceration was imposed, reduced to 8 months after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation with specific conditions, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The applicant sought to compel the Crown to disclose the identity of a confidential source, or alternatively, to present the source's physical description of the occupant of a storage locker to the trier of fact.

The applicant argued that the confidential source's description of the occupant as "heavy set" was inconsistent with his own physical appearance, and this information was critical to raising a reasonable doubt about his guilt as the possessor of firearms found in the locker.

The court applied the "innocence at stake" exception to informer privilege, finding that the information was not available from any other source and was likely to raise a reasonable doubt.

The court ruled that the confidential informant privilege must be pierced, allowing the confidential source to be called as a witness on the identification information, or an alternative method to present the description to the trier of fact.

Leighton Bonnick was charged with firearms offences following a shooting incident at a barbeque.

The Crown alleged Bonnick returned to the party with a gun after being assaulted, leading to a gunfight where Donahue Bernard was shot.

The defence argued Bonnick did not possess a gun and that the Crown's witnesses were unreliable and inconsistent.

The court found the evidence of Crown witnesses to be inconsistent, unreliable, and lacking credibility, particularly regarding whether Bonnick had a gun.

Applying the third branch of R. v. W.(D.), the court was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonnick possessed a gun and acquitted him of all charges.

The offender was sentenced following a jury conviction for multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference against a child over a period of several years.

The offences involved oral sexual acts and inappropriate touching beginning when the complainant was a very young child and continuing into adolescence.

The court emphasized aggravating factors including breach of trust, the young age of the complainant, the persistence of the conduct, and the long‑term psychological impact.

Although the offender had no prior criminal record and strong community support, denunciation and deterrence were given primacy in sentencing for sexual offences against children.

A global penitentiary sentence of three years was imposed along with DNA, lifetime sexual offender registration, and lifetime weapons prohibition orders.

During a criminal trial for sexual offences, the Crown sought to admit an alleged spontaneous statement made by the accused after arrest asking about the punishment for sexual assault.

The voluntariness of the statement was not in dispute, but the accused denied making the statement and argued that its reliability and probative value were insufficient.

The court considered the evidentiary threshold and the decision in R. v. Park regarding statements to police.

Given the lack of precise notes, conflicting officer recollections, and the speculative inference that could be drawn from the statement, the court held that its prejudicial effect outweighed its tenuous probative value.

The statement was excluded from the jury’s consideration.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm after striking a pedestrian while driving with a blood alcohol concentration approximately twice the legal limit.

The offence caused significant physical and psychological harm to the victim and involved property damage.

The accused had prior convictions for impaired driving and related offences, constituting a third drinking-and-driving offence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for impaired driving offences causing bodily harm.

Balancing aggravating factors with mitigating factors including a guilty plea, expressions of remorse, employment history, family support, and efforts at alcohol treatment, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The accused was convicted of possession of approximately 45 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at a restaurant and located drugs behind the counter.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two years while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of trafficking offences, the quantity of drugs, and the accused’s prior criminal record as aggravating factors, while also weighing mitigating circumstances including family support, stable employment, and prolonged compliance with strict bail conditions.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence alongside rehabilitation under s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court concluded that a strict conditional sentence would adequately address the purposes of sentencing.

The accused was sentenced to two years less a day to be served in the community under strict house arrest followed by probation.

Sentencing following a guilty plea to breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing theft.

The offender had an extensive criminal history including numerous prior break and enter convictions and was on probation at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought a five‑year penitentiary sentence while the defence sought four years with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody based on institutional conduct.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public given the offender’s persistent recidivism but accepted evidence of positive institutional behaviour and program participation as circumstances justifying enhanced credit under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

Enhanced credit reduced the custodial sentence to twenty‑four months less one day in a provincial institution.

The Crown sought to admit a videotaped prior inconsistent statement of a witness identifying the accused as responsible for several bank robberies.

The witness recanted or claimed memory loss during testimony, raising issues about the reliability and voluntariness of the prior statement.

Applying the framework from R. v. B.(K.G.) and R. v. Khelawon, the court examined whether the statement met the requirements of necessity and threshold reliability.

The court found that the witness’s evasive and contradictory testimony prevented meaningful cross‑examination and that the police had not adequately recorded critical interactions preceding the statement.

Despite some corroborating circumstances, the court held that the Crown failed to establish reliability on a balance of probabilities and refused to admit the statement for the truth of its contents.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from the laying of the Information to the anticipated trial date was approximately three years, nine months, and eighteen days.

Applying the framework from R. v. Morin, the court analyzed the length of delay, reasons for delay, and prejudice.

Much of the delay was attributed to neutral intake periods, inherent time requirements of the case, or institutional delay within acceptable limits.

The court found minimal prejudice to the accused and concluded that the societal interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the delay.

The accused pleaded guilty to two masked robberies of retail stores in which imitation firearms were brandished and cash and property were stolen.

Although no physical injuries occurred, victims experienced emotional and financial harm.

The Crown sought a three‑year custodial sentence, while the defence requested time served.

The court considered the seriousness of robbery offences and the importance of deterrence but also noted the accused’s youth, guilty plea, remorse, family support, and rehabilitative prospects.

Given that the accused had already spent approximately two and one‑half years in pre‑trial custody, the court concluded that a sentence of time served appropriately addressed the principles of sentencing.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of failing to provide the necessaries of life to her young children after feeding them a highly restricted raw vegan diet that resulted in severe malnutrition, osteopenia, and rickets.

The court considered aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the children, the breach of parental trust, and the life‑threatening nature of the harm.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of prior criminal record, guilty plea, participation in parenting and nutrition programs, and psychological evidence indicating low risk of reoffending.

Applying the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence for offences involving child victims under the Criminal Code, the court determined that a custodial sentence was warranted but could be served conditionally in the community.

A six‑month conditional sentence with strict conditions and three years’ probation was imposed.

The accused was convicted after trial of multiple child pornography offences including possession, making child pornography available, and accessing child pornography through a peer‑to‑peer file‑sharing network.

Police investigators directly connected to the accused’s computer through the LimeWire/Gnutella network and downloaded files while the accused’s system was actively downloading and sharing illicit material.

A search of the accused’s residence revealed thousands of images and videos stored on a computer tower, laptop, and disks accumulated over several years.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as the dominant sentencing objectives for internet‑based child pornography offences, particularly where the offender disseminates material to others online.

Considering the scale of the collection, the dissemination of files, and the lack of remorse or evidence of treatment prospects, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence with concurrent terms and ancillary orders.