Wendy Harris Bentley

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.

Following conviction for robbery while armed with a handgun and having face masked, the court imposed a sentence of three and a half years in penitentiary plus enhanced credit for pre-trial custody totaling approximately six years.

The court balanced serious aggravating factors including the use of a firearm in a public place, careful planning, and significant victim impact against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, Indigenous heritage, educational achievements, and future prospects.

The court applied Gladue principles while recognizing that denunciation and deterrence remain paramount for firearm-related offences.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, and having his face masked while committing an indictable offence.

The defence conceded all elements except identity.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence from a white t-shirt found at the scene, witness descriptions, and testimony from two unsavoury witnesses with significant credibility issues.

The court found the accused guilty of armed robbery and masking his face, but not guilty of the firearm charge due to a statutory interpretation issue regarding section 85(3) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was convicted of selling tobacco to a person under 19 years old contrary to section 3(1) of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

The trial judge found the appellant credible but convicted him on the basis that he conducted a subjective analysis rather than an objective one, and should have requested identification.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the due diligence defence was available where he honestly and reasonably believed the buyer appeared to be 25 years or older based on his training, experience, and observation.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding that section 3(2) of the Act contemplates that sellers need not request identification in all cases, and that an honest mistake of fact constitutes a valid defence where the seller has diligently assessed the buyer's apparent age using their knowledge and experience.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with second-degree murder of Dakoda Martin and aggravated assault of Andre Williams.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for aggravated assault and manslaughter but argued there was no evidence of subjective foresight of death required for second-degree murder.

The court found that circumstantial evidence, including the location and nature of the fatal chest wound, the depth of penetration, and evidence of a deliberate stabbing to a vulnerable area while the victim lay on the ground, could reasonably support an inference that the accused knew the bodily harm would likely cause death.

The accused was committed to stand trial on second-degree murder and aggravated assault.