Tracy Vogel

The offender was convicted of robbery with a firearm and related offences, which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years.

He spent over three and a half years in pre-sentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre, enduring exceptionally harsh conditions including 491 days of lockdowns.

The court dismissed a request for a Charter stay of proceedings but granted significant enhanced credit for the oppressive pre-sentence custody conditions under the Duncan framework.

The offender was sentenced to 7.5 years plus one day, with 7.5 years of pre-sentence credit applied, leaving one day to serve followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, sexual assault, and forcible confinement arising from an incident on October 31, 2017, in a residential condominium building.

The accused, a custodian at the building, lured the complainant to a secluded stairwell by deception, brandished a knife, and positioned his crotch near her face while restraining her with his forearm.

The complainant resisted and screamed until a neighbor intervened.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on all three counts, determining that the conduct constituted an actual sexual assault (not merely attempted), as the accused deliberately violated the complainant's sexual integrity through the positioning of his genitals near her face in a threatening context, combined with physical restraint.

The applicant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and related offences.

Following conviction, the Crown brought an unsuccessful application for a psychiatric assessment for a dangerous offender application, and the defence brought a Charter application regarding pre-trial custody conditions.

The sentencing was delayed for 17 months post-conviction.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The court applied the Jordan framework to the post-conviction sentencing delay, finding a net delay of 32 months (24 months pre-trial and 8 months post-trial attributable to the system/Crown).

As this exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling, the court found a s. 11(b) violation and permanently stayed the proceedings.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm following an incident at a convenience store.

The Crown alleged the accused pistol-whipped the store clerk and struggled with him over a handgun, resulting in two shots being fired.

The accused testified that he was merely a bystander and that his young companion committed the robbery.

Applying the W(D) framework, the court rejected the accused's exculpatory evidence as contrived and accepted the store clerk's testimony, which was corroborated by an independent witness and forensic evidence including gunshot residue.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

The accused was charged with five criminal offences including failing to comply with bail conditions, robbery, and assault.

The Crown sought to revoke his previous bail and sought detention on the secondary ground (public safety).

The accused sought judicial interim release with his father as proposed surety.

The court found that the accused had not met his burden of demonstrating that release conditions could adequately address public safety concerns, particularly given his extensive criminal history including multiple breaches of court orders, violent offences, and the pattern of non-compliance with bail conditions.

The court was not satisfied that the proposed surety could provide adequate supervision given the lack of a meaningful relationship between father and son.

The court ordered detention.

The offender was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault against his six-year-old biological son.

The offences involved oral and anal sex over a two-week period.

The court considered the devastating impact on the victim, the offender's lack of remorse, and the profound breach of trust.

Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court sentenced the offender to 5 years' incarceration, along with weapons prohibitions, a DNA order, and a section 161 prohibition order.

Mary Wagner was charged with breach of probation and mischief interfering with private property arising from her attendance at an abortion clinic where she allegedly offered roses and pamphlets to patients to discourage them from having abortions.

Wagner brought an application seeking production of all medical records, counselling records, identities, and contact information for the fifteen clinic patients and staff.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the requested information failed both branches of the O'Connor test: the information was not likely relevant to any material issue at trial, and even if it were, the privacy and dignity interests of the patients and employees outweighed any benefit to the defence.

Mary Wagner was charged with breach of probation and mischief interfering with private property arising from her attendance at a Toronto abortion clinic, where she attempted to intercede with patients by offering roses and pamphlets.

The trial focused not on whether the Crown could prove the acts alleged, but on whether Wagner was justified in her conduct based on defences of self-defence of others and necessity.

Wagner argued that a foetus has the status of a human being and that she was duty-bound to intervene to protect unborn lives.

The court rejected all of Wagner's constitutional and legal defences, finding her guilty on all counts.

The judgment provides extensive analysis of the legal status of the foetus under Canadian law, the scope of self-defence provisions, the doctrine of necessity, and the rule of law.