Vanessa E. Decker

The applicant, Adam Dabrowski, sought a bail review under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, arguing material changes in circumstances: the COVID-19 pandemic and his sister's availability as a residential surety.

The court found that the sister's availability was not a material change, as it represented a change in legal strategy rather than new circumstances.

However, the court accepted the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change, triggering a de novo hearing.

Despite this, the proposed release plan, which included the sister as surety and house arrest, was deemed insufficient to address primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention, particularly given the applicant's history of breaching bail, credibility issues, and the surety's limited capacity for supervision.

The application for release was dismissed.

The accused, whose first language is French, was arrested for sexual assault.

He brought a mid-trial Charter application arguing his rights under ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated because he was not advised of his rights in a meaningful and comprehensible manner in English.

The court found that objective indicia of special circumstances regarding linguistic comprehension were present, and the police failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the accused understood his rights.

The court concluded the Charter rights were breached and excluded the accused's statements to police under s. 24(2).

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction, making the mandatory minimum sentence six months imprisonment.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under section 12 of the Charter, arguing it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found that while the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate for this particular offender, it would be grossly disproportionate when applied to reasonable hypotheticals involving minimal culpability.

The court declared the mandatory minimum unconstitutional and imposed an intermittent sentence of 111 days (90 days to serve after pre-trial custody credit) with probation and ancillary orders.

The appellant, Faouzi Reslan, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the imposed sentence of three months custody followed by two years probation.

The appeal from conviction was based on the trial judge's alleged failure to provide adequate reasons and misapprehension of evidence, particularly regarding inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The appeal from sentence argued that the trial judge erred by overly focusing on denunciation and deterrence, failing to consider the appellant's medical issues, and imposing an unnecessarily harsh sentence by rejecting a conditional sentence.

The court dismissed both appeals, finding the trial judge's reasons for conviction adequate and her sentencing decision within the acceptable range, properly balancing sentencing principles and considering the appellant's circumstances.

The accused, a 40-year-old teacher with 12 years of unblemished service, pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences involving a 12-13 year old student.

The relationship began as supportive mentoring but escalated into romantic and highly sexualized communications, including exchange of explicit images and videos, and physical sexual contact including oral sex and digital penetration.

The accused was arrested after being discovered with the victim in a school gymnasium closet.

The court imposed a sentence of 33 months incarceration with enhanced pre-trial custody credit, resulting in 20 months to serve, followed by 3 years probation.

The court rejected the Crown's submission for 4-5 years, finding the case unique and warranting a sentence outside the normal range due to mitigating factors including genuine remorse, guilty plea, strong family support, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a minor collision in a restaurant drive-thru.

The Crown relied on breath test results and observations of impairment.

The defence challenged both the impairment evidence and the timing of the breath samples.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding impairment based on video evidence from the police station showing no signs of impairment.

Additionally, the court found that the Crown failed to establish that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, as required by statute.

The investigating officer's explanation that the breath technician was unavailable was contradicted by the technician's own evidence.

The court excluded the breath test results and acquitted the accused.

The applicant was charged with luring a person under the age of 16 by means of telecommunication contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant pleaded guilty but sought a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of his Charter rights under section 7 and claiming entrapment.

The police had posted an advertisement on Kijiji posing as a 14-year-old female and engaged in email communications with the applicant over several months.

The court rejected the entrapment defence, finding that the police conducted a valid bona fide investigation using a legitimate investigative technique at a location where the crime is committed at a high rate, and that there was no inducement that would offend basic community values.