Victoria L. Reid

The accused, Cassandra Bell, pleaded guilty to one count of assault under s. 265(1) of the Criminal Code, a lesser charge than the original sexual exploitation and uttering threats charges.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's young age (8-9 years old), the repeated touching of the victim's groin area (5-7 times over clothing), the significant emotional harm to the victim and his family, and the fact the offence occurred in the child's home.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, its timing, the accused's deafness, community support, and counselling.

The Crown sought a 6-month conditional sentence, while the Defence sought probation or a 90-day conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by two years of probation, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons ban, emphasizing the need for denunciation despite the plea to a common assault.

This endorsement addresses the adjournment of three criminal trials (R. v. Q., R. v. D.O., R. v. J.N.) scheduled to commence in the Superior Court of Justice in Milton.

The trials were adjourned due to recent findings of contamination and ongoing assessment of the courthouse building, rendering it unsafe for in-person proceedings.

The court emphasized that the health and safety of all participants, including potential jurors, litigants, lawyers, accused persons, and witnesses, was the overarching priority, necessitating the extraordinary step of adjourning matters until further notice.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for dismissing a s. 11(b) motion for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in a sexual assault case.

The court analyzed three periods of delay, attributing some to defence and characterizing significant portions as institutional delay due to persistent physical and technological failures at the Burlington courthouse (HVAC failure, malfunctioning CCTV equipment).

Despite these systemic issues, the total delay of 16 months, 2 weeks, fell below the 18-month Jordan presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice, and the defence's decision not to utilize an earlier trial date contributed to the overall timeline.

J.D. was found guilty of sexual assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including abuse of trust, the victim's vulnerability, and the lasting impact on the victim, and mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record, good character, and collateral consequences related to marital breakdown and potential immigration status.

The defence sought a conditional sentence, while the Crown sought 3.5 years custody.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, and sentenced J.D. to three years' imprisonment, along with a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a no-contact order with the victim.

The accused was tried for sexual assault against his 18-year-old niece.

The Crown alleged the accused touched the complainant's breast and digitally penetrated her vagina without consent while she was drowsy from medication.

The court admitted the accused's out-of-court statements to a friend and expert psychiatric evidence called by the defence.

The court found that the accused touched the complainant's breast before asking if she was uncomfortable, and that any subsequent consent was vitiated by his abuse of a position of trust.

The court also accepted the complainant's evidence that the accused digitally penetrated her while she was asleep.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

Brian Graci was charged with willfully doing an indecent act in a public place, contrary to section 173(1) of the Criminal Code.

The actus reus was undisputed: Graci masturbated in a public courtyard, observed by a witness.

The central issue was the mens rea: whether "willfully" required an intent to be seen, or if indifference or recklessness as to the presence of others was sufficient.

The court, after reviewing conflicting authorities, adopted the latter interpretation, finding that Graci's actions, performed in a public area with medium traffic and facing an office building, demonstrated indifference or recklessness.

Consequently, Graci was found guilty.

The Crown applied for testimonial aids for the complainant in a sexual assault trial, seeking remote testimony via closed-circuit television and the presence of a support person.

The court granted the request for a support person, as it was uncontested by the defence.

However, the application for remote testimony was denied.

The court found that while the complainant had a mental disability (post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression), the Crown failed to establish the necessary nexus between this disability and a potential difficulty in communicating evidence, as required by subsection 486.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court noted that a privacy screen, an alternative expressly contemplated by Parliament and offered by the defence, was available and deemed sufficient.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 committed between May 2, 2012 and March 1, 2016.

As Power of Attorney for her mother's personal care and property, the accused depleted her mother's bank accounts and investments by approximately $161,000, spending the money on gambling, living expenses, and overseas travel.

The court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation with conditions prohibiting the accused from holding positions of trust and requiring counselling.

A stand-alone restitution order of $161,000 was made in favour of the estate.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 276.2 of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of prior consensual sexual activity with the complainant, M.M., at a strip club.

The accused argued this evidence was necessary to explain the presence of his DNA on a vaginal swab taken from M.M. hours after the alleged assault and to challenge M.M.'s credibility regarding her earnings that night.

The court applied the two-step Darrach procedure, finding the accused's affidavit sufficiently detailed and his evidence credible enough to raise a reasonable doubt.

The court determined the evidence was admissible as it was a specific instance of sexual activity, relevant to an issue at trial (explaining DNA), and had significant probative value not outweighed by prejudice, upholding the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm after forcibly removing apartment keys from the hands of his roommate and dragging her out of the apartment.

The accused claimed justification under section 35 of the Criminal Code (defence of property), arguing the complainant was a trespasser.

The court found that although the accused may have subjectively believed he had the right to eject the complainant, such belief was not objectively reasonable.

The complainant was a tenant with rights to the apartment, had paid rent, was not in arrears, and had not agreed to vacate by the date the accused demanded.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm, holding that his use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant, a numbered Ontario corporation, sought costs on an appeal from a conviction under the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario.

The appellant had been convicted in absentia after the prosecutor amended the Information to substitute the appellant as defendant without notice or service.

The court found jurisdiction to award costs under section 129 of the Provincial Offences Act and determined that exceptional circumstances existed warranting a costs award.

Although the prosecutor's conduct was careless rather than malicious, the court found that fairness required the appellant be relieved of the financial burden of the appeal, as it had been wrongly convicted without notice or opportunity to defend.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $4,520.00.