Taylor Danielle Curley

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault and assault against his intimate partner.

The offences involved forced penetrative intercourse without a condom after consent was withdrawn, followed by the defendant physically forcing the complainant to take an emergency contraceptive pill.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including the defendant's prior record for intimate partner violence and the profound impact on the complainant, against mitigating factors such as family support and systemic anti-Black racism.

The court sentenced the defendant to 4.5 years for sexual assault and 9 months concurrent for assault, less 329 days of pre-sentence credit.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault of a child, the sentencing judge imposed a three-year penitentiary sentence.

The offence involved attempted penetration of a ten-year-old child by an adult in a position of trust within the family home.

The Crown sought six years; the defence sought 18-24 months.

The court applied the principles of denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives in child sexual abuse cases, while also considering the offender's lack of criminal record, rehabilitative potential, and collateral consequences to his dependent children.

The defendant, S.V., was tried on two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault.

The first sexual assault charge, alleging that the defendant forced the complainant to touch his penis, resulted in an acquittal because the court had a reasonable doubt.

The second sexual assault charge, alleging that the defendant ejaculated inside the complainant without her consent and contrary to their agreement, resulted in a conviction.

The defendant was also convicted of assault for grabbing the complainant's neck and face to force her to take an emergency contraceptive pill.

This decision addresses the circumstantial evidence required to prove identity and knowledge in a theft of a motor vehicle case.

The court carefully analyzes surveillance footage, GPS data, and clothing evidence to determine that the accused, Philip McDonald, was the driver of a recently stolen Land Rover and knowingly possessed stolen property.

The doctrine of recent possession is applied to infer guilt in the absence of direct evidence of the theft.

The accused is also found guilty of being masked with intent to commit an indictable offence under section 351(d) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Robert Cropearedwolf, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after an incident where he pushed an elderly man, Douglas Michael Finlay, who subsequently died due to complications from the fall exacerbated by pre-existing health conditions.

The court considered the low degree of force used, the accused's lack of intent to cause death or serious harm, his remorse, and significant Gladue factors stemming from a traumatic childhood in foster care and disconnection from his Indigenous heritage.

Aggravating factors included the victim's vulnerability, the random nature of the assault, and the accused's lengthy criminal record, though primarily for property offenses.

The court applied sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, emphasizing the need for restraint and the unique circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

A sentence of 3 years (1095 days) was imposed, with credit for 498 days of pre-sentence custody, leaving 597 days (approx. 20 months) to be served, followed by 3 years of probation with conditions aimed at rehabilitation and community reintegration.

The accused, Conrad Grizzle, faced six charges including threatening, assault, theft, and breach of a release order, stemming from an altercation with his ex-partner.

The court assessed witness credibility, the applicability of "lawful excuse" for the breach, and the "de minimis" and "consent fight" defenses for the assault and theft charges.

The court found the accused not guilty of theft of a car key, one count of assault (related to taking the phone), and breach of release order (due to lawful excuse to protect a child).

However, the accused was found guilty of threatening bodily harm, assault (bear hug), and theft of the cellphone, rejecting the de minimis and consent fight defenses in the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused, Grace Vieira, was charged with impaired driving and over 80 mg% blood alcohol after a rear-end collision.

She challenged the lawfulness of breath demands and her arrest, alleging breaches of her Charter rights under ss. 8 and 9.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for both the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand and the subsequent arrest and breathalyzer demand, largely due to inconsistencies between the officer's testimony and body-worn camera footage, and the officer acting on a hunch rather than objective facts.

The court also found that the accused's statement identifying herself as the driver was compelled.

Applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the serious nature of the Charter breaches and their significant impact on the accused's liberty outweighed society's interest in the admission of the reliable breath sample evidence.

Consequently, the breath samples were excluded, leading to an acquittal on both charges.