Todd Morris

This is a sentencing decision for Jacob Clarke, a first offender, on charges of domestic assault, failure to comply with a release order, and sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court considered aggravating factors including the domestic context of the first assault, choking, the victim's recent childbirth, the vulnerability of the sexual assault victim due to age, a threat of a gun, and the commission of the sexual assault while on release.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's first offender status and guilty pleas.

The court also considered the defendant's disadvantaged upbringing, history of substance abuse, and mental health issues, noting concerns about malingering.

The sexual assault was deemed the primary driver of the sentence.

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, ultimately imposing a total effective sentence of approximately 52 months (28 months pre-sentence custody credit plus 2 years less a day in a reformatory), along with concurrent sentences for the other charges, three years of probation, a DNA order, a 10-year s. 109 order, a non-communication order, and 20 years of SOIRA registration.

Mohamed Ali was found guilty of sexually assaulting LSM.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The Crown sought 2-3 years imprisonment and ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, no-contact order).

Defence sought a 6-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a two-year term of imprisonment, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate and that nothing short of a penitentiary sentence would be suitable given the gravity of the offence and its significant impact on the victim.

The court also imposed all ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

The accused, Jordan Bolger, was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving a 15-year-old complainant, E.B., at a waterpark.

The Crown's case relied primarily on E.B.'s testimony, which described multiple attempts and one successful touching by the accused in a hot tub.

The accused denied the allegations.

The court applied the principles of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the W.(D.) analysis for assessing conflicting evidence, and specific considerations for child testimony and victim reactions in sexual assault cases.

Despite finding E.B.'s evidence more reliable and probable, the court concluded that it did not meet the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault against Mohamed Ali, who was accused of non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the complainant, LSM.

The accused denied vaginal intercourse, claiming other sexual touching was consensual.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D) to assess the conflicting evidence.

The accused's testimony was found to be inconsistent and not credible, particularly regarding his statements about ejaculation and his responses to the complainant's accusations.

The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and corroborated by forensic evidence (presence of the accused's semen in her vagina) and the accused's post-incident text messages.

The court rejected defence arguments based on "rape myths" concerning the complainant's behaviour and found that a breach of the Browne v. Dunn rule by defence counsel did not affect the outcome.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The defendant, C.S., brought a motion for leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants of an Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant.

The defence alleged that the ITO contained misleading information and material omissions, arguing that cross-examination was necessary to challenge the reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant and to explore whether the warrant was obtained by deception.

The court reviewed the legal principles governing Garofoli motions and the duty of full and frank disclosure.

The motion was dismissed, as the court found the defence had not laid the necessary foundation to justify cross-examination, concluding that the alleged omissions and inaccuracies were either irrelevant or insufficient to establish a reasonable basis for a claim of abuse of process.

The defendant pleaded guilty to incest and sexual interference involving his biological daughter, who was 12 years old when the abuse began.

The abuse spanned two to three years and included various sexual acts.

The Crown accepted the defendant's version of events to spare the victim from testifying.

The court considered a presentence report and a discharge treatment report, noting the defendant's remorse and participation in therapy, which indicated a low risk of re-offending.

The court emphasized the profound breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence, applying principles from R. v. Friesen.

The defendant was sentenced to five years for incest and one year consecutive for sexual interference, for a total of six years, along with ancillary orders.

A young person charged with multiple serious offences including sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and firearm-related offences sought access to youth records (occurrence reports) involving the complainant.

The defence sought access to establish the affiant failed in her duty of disclosure in the Information to Obtain, to demonstrate the complainant's history of violence and dishonesty for cross-examination purposes, and to support a self-defence plea.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Youth Criminal Justice Act provides a presumptive rule of non-disclosure with limited exceptions, and that the defence had not met the stringent test required for access to youth records where no charges were laid or the access period had expired.

A youth was found guilty of sexual assault following trial.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

At sentencing, the court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order for six months followed by probation for eighteen months, along with a DNA order and weapons prohibition.

The court considered the sentencing principles under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the serious impact on the victim, and the offender's background and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court found that the offence, while serious, fell within the lower end of the spectrum of sexual assault conduct and that a custodial disposition was not necessary given the availability of reasonable alternatives.

A young person was charged with sexually assaulting another young person at a party.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The accused pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

The Crown called the complainant and a witness.

The defence called a witness whose evidence contradicted the complainant's account.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W(D) and assessed the credibility and reliability of all witnesses.

The court found the defence witness to be neither credible nor reliable due to his extreme intoxication, delayed recollection, implausible explanations, tendency to infer facts rather than observe them, apparent motive to fabricate, adoption of a defence advocate role, and inconsistency with accepted evidence.

The court found the complainant to be credible and reliable despite some minor inconsistencies.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant and found him guilty.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual interference against a nine-year-old girl.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of six to nine months, while the defence sought a 12-month conditional sentence order.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with electronic supervision, followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing was guided by R. v. Friesen and the principle that sexual offences against children warrant denunciation and deterrence, but exceptional circumstances—including the defendant's unresolved mental health issues—justified a non-custodial sentence.

The defendant was also subject to ancillary orders including sex offender registry, DNA collection, weapons prohibition, and a 10-year section 161 order restricting contact with minors.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual interference with an eight-year-old child.

The defendant, a 66-year-old retired plumber, had been in a position of trust as a family friend.

The offence involved touching the victim's genitals during a sleepover.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 6-9 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or intermittent jail sentence to allow the defendant to care for his wife who suffers from serious medical conditions.

The court imposed a three-month jail sentence followed by two years of probation, rejecting the conditional sentence based on the principles established in R. v. Friesen regarding the protection of children and the seriousness of sexual offences against minors.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

He voluntarily surrendered three hard drives containing a small collection of child pornography to police after experiencing a medical emergency, without any prior police investigation.

The Crown sought six months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a twelve-month conditional sentence with nine months of house arrest followed by three months of curfew, combined with three years of probation and one hundred hours of community service.

The sentencing was exceptional, as the court found this to be an extremely rare case where a conditional sentence was appropriate despite the serious nature of child pornography offences, given the defendant's significant mental health issues, small collection size, voluntary self-reporting, guilty plea, and demonstrated commitment to treatment.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation contrary to section 253(a) of the Criminal Code and refuse to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5).

Following a traffic stop for excessive speeding, the investigating officer requested the defendant perform a physical coordination test without formal demand under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and without proper training.

The court found breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Evidence from the roadside physical test and observations during its administration were excluded.

However, the defendant's statements refusing the breath sample at the police station were admitted as they lacked sufficient nexus to the Charter breach.

The defendant was acquitted of impaired operation but convicted of refuse breath sample.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for assault on a bar patron.

The incident occurred inside the Less Than Level bar in Oakville on March 16, 2013.

The defendants were charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, with one defendant also charged with breach of probation.

The Crown relied on testimony from two sober witnesses: the bouncer and the bar manager, who observed the defendants repeatedly kicking the victim while he lay defenseless on the ground.

The defendants presented no evidence.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault and one guilty of breach of probation based on the credible testimony of the sober witnesses.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to trial on first degree murder for the death of Shana Carter, alleging the murder was planned and deliberate.

The accused's counsel conceded sufficient evidence existed for committal on second degree murder but opposed committal on first degree.

The court found that while the evidence could support inferences of deliberation, the evidence regarding planning was more problematic.

However, applying the legal test for committal, the court determined that a jury could reasonably infer planning from the totality of the evidence, including the accused's motive (protecting his son), his animus toward the deceased, prior attempted strangulation, post-offence conduct (body disposal, cleanup, false statements), and statements to an undercover officer.

The court committed the accused to trial on first degree murder.