Valerie Dawn Culp

The accused, A.M., charged with non-consensual distribution of intimate images under s. 162.1 of the Criminal Code, brought a motion for direction regarding the admissibility of the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The defence argued that neither the statutory regime under s. 276 nor the common law regime from R. v. Seaboyer applied.

The Crown contended that s. 276 applied, or alternatively, Seaboyer.

The court ruled that s. 276 did not apply in the particular circumstances of this case, as the images depicted consensual activity and thus did not implicate an enumerated offence.

However, the court found that the common law Seaboyer regime did apply to the offence of distributing intimate images, requiring the defence to file a written application, supported by affidavit or testimony, detailing and justifying the proposed evidence.

Ginye Clarke pleaded guilty to multiple offences including robbery with a firearm, breach of recognizance, and various firearm possession charges.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 to 8 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years (60 months), applying 27 months of Summers credit and an additional 10 months of Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, resulting in a further 23 months to be served.

Ancillary orders for DNA, firearm forfeiture, and a lifetime weapons prohibition were also imposed, along with 12 months of probation.

Samantha Brown pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death, failing to comply with a recognizance, and possession of cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors including a prior impaired driving conviction, driving without a license while on bail, and an ongoing pattern of dangerous driving.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, sincere remorse, motivation for treatment, and family support.

The court balanced deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, imposing a sentence of six and a half years imprisonment (five years and three months after pre-sentence custody credit) for impaired driving causing death, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, and a five-year driving prohibition commencing at the end of imprisonment.

Muse Abdirahim was sentenced for seven offences arising from two armed robberies committed in 2010.

He pleaded guilty to six charges and was found guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to wound.

The Crown sought a 12-year global sentence, while the defence proposed 6 years, emphasizing mitigating factors such as the offender's youth at the time, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and significant rehabilitation efforts over the nine years between the offences and sentencing.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the mandatory minimum sentences for firearm use, and the severe impact on the victim, balanced against the offender's strong prospects for rehabilitation and the lengthy delay.

A global sentence of 8 years incarceration was imposed, to be served consecutively to a prior four-year sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference with a child under 16 years of age, allegedly occurring between March 5 and March 27, 2017.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the eight-year-old complainant, who was seven years old at the time of the alleged offences.

The trial judge found that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The judgment focused on credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, including inconsistencies regarding when the assaults allegedly occurred, the complainant's failure to disclose to her parents despite having the opportunity to do so, and the absence of material details regarding the alleged assaults.

This is a judicial interim release hearing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for an 18-year-old accused charged with 14 counts including unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, careless storage of firearms and ammunition, possession contrary to a prohibition order, and unlawful possession of explosives.

The accused had recently pleaded guilty to robbery and weapons offences and was placed on probation and a weapons prohibition order, but was arrested two weeks later with a homemade firearm, ammunition, and related materials in his bedroom.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court granted bail with strict conditions, finding that the accused met his onus on both grounds, emphasizing the untested nature of the firearm, the accused's demonstrated rehabilitation efforts while in custody, and the strict supervision plan proposed by his sureties.

The accused, Anthony Magiri, brought an application seeking a declaration that section 273.1(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, which states "no consent is obtained...where...the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity," is void for vagueness and violates sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the term "incapable" in relation to consent is not vague and has been consistently interpreted in jurisprudence.

The court emphasized that capacity is implicit in the concept of voluntary agreement for sexual activity and that the jurisprudence does not show fundamental conflict regarding the concept of capacity, even in cases involving intoxication.

The accused, a young person within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was charged with rape, sexual intercourse with a female under 14, common assault, and threatening death arising from an alleged sexual assault in 1971.

The complainant reported the incident nearly forty years later.

The prosecution relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony and evidence from witnesses recounting her prior complaint.

The court held that while the complainant’s narrative could support a finding of probable guilt, several evidentiary concerns and inconsistencies created reasonable doubt when considered cumulatively.

Applying the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused on all counts.