Yves André Jubinville

Détermination de la peine pour une agression sexuelle commise contre la fille adulte, mais vulnérable sur le plan intellectuel, de la conjointe de fait du contrevenant.

Le tribunal a mis l’accent sur la dénonciation et la dissuasion en matière d’infractions sexuelles visant une victime vulnérable, tout en tenant compte des limites cognitives, de l’absence d’antécédents judiciaires et de la situation personnelle difficile du contrevenant.

La cour a conclu qu’une peine carcérale était nécessaire et a imposé 12 mois d’emprisonnement, en plus du crédit pour détention préventive, suivis de 24 mois de probation et d’ordonnances accessoires.

The Court allowed the appeals and held that the mandatory victim surcharge in section 737 of the Criminal Code violates section 12 of the Charter for impecunious offenders.

The provision was declared of no force and effect immediately.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory victim surcharge imposed under section 737 of the Criminal Code, arguing it violates sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellants were impoverished offenders with mental and physical disabilities, unemployment, and substance abuse issues.

The trial judges had refused to impose the surcharge, finding it unconstitutional.

The Crown appealed and the Superior Court judges overturned these decisions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory victim surcharge, finding that while it engages the appellants' liberty interests, it does not violate section 7 because impoverished offenders cannot be imprisoned for non-payment (inability to pay is a reasonable excuse), extensions of time to pay are available, and the deprivation is not grossly disproportionate to the important objectives of the surcharge regime.

The court also found the surcharge does not violate section 12 of the Charter as it is not cruel and unusual treatment, being disproportionate but not grossly disproportionate.

The accused faced a 20-count indictment alleging historical sexual offences against children at a residence in Montreal and at a campground trailer.

The court assessed the evidence count by count, accepted some complainant evidence as credible and reliable, rejected the accused's denial, and found that several counts were not proved because of evidentiary gaps concerning specific elements, age, or reliability.

The court held that s. 171(a) of the Criminal Code requires proof that the children were knowingly permitted to be on the premises for the purpose of sexual activity, and acquitted on those counts.

The court also amended one count under s. 601 to correct the time period and entered convictions on eight counts.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against his stepdaughter.

He argued the trial judge erred in accepting the testimony of the complainant and her brother due to inconsistencies and memory loss, and in admitting the complainant's video statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the children's credibility or the admission of the video statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm following a single-vehicle accident.

The investigating officer obtained a production order for the applicant's hospital medical records, including blood alcohol analysis, based on a sworn information.

The applicant brought a Charter motion arguing the search violated his s. 8 rights because the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found the information contained significant omissions and relied on the officer's unsupported assumptions rather than objective facts.

The court concluded the search violated s. 8 and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the high expectation of privacy in medical records.

Following the ruling, the Crown stayed the proceedings.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that declared the mandatory victim surcharge under s. 737(1) of the Criminal Code unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

The accused, who pleaded guilty to multiple offences and was indigent with mental health and addiction issues, argued that the mandatory surcharge imposed a crushing financial burden.

The Superior Court agreed that the surcharge constitutes punishment for Charter purposes but held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to establish that the surcharge was grossly disproportionate.

The court emphasized the high threshold for s. 12 violations and the availability of statutory mechanisms such as extensions of time to pay.

The appeal was allowed and the surcharge was ordered imposed.

Criminal trial involving 18 charges arising from allegations of intimate partner violence, including assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement, uttering threats, break and enter, and mischief.

The accused pleaded not guilty to all counts.

The court found the complainant’s testimony not sufficiently credible or reliable to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies between the allegations of severe violence and the complainant’s numerous affectionate communications with the accused both during and after the alleged incidents.

Corroborative witnesses largely repeated statements made by the complainant and did not independently establish the alleged assaults.

The court rejected the testimony of a former partner as biased but accepted evidence that the accused damaged the complainant’s vehicle at a parking lot.

The accused was convicted only of mischief under $5,000 and acquitted on all remaining counts.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of statements made to firefighters, a paramedic, and a police officer following a single-vehicle collision that caused serious bodily harm to his passenger.

He argued the driver-identification statements were compelled by the statutory accident-reporting duty, that the arrest and breath demand lacked reasonable and probable grounds, and that his right to counsel was breached.

The court held the accused failed to prove statutory compulsion, found the arresting officer had both a genuine and objectively reasonable belief that the accused had driven while impaired, and concluded the accused was informed of his right to counsel and never invoked it.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory victim surcharge (SAC) imposed under section 737 of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated his rights under sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the SAC constitutes a punishment rather than an ancillary order.

Applying the test for cruel and unusual punishment under section 12, the court determined that imposing a $700 surcharge on an impoverished, mentally ill, and substance-dependent offender with a monthly income of approximately $136 would be grossly disproportionate and incompatible with human dignity.

The court declared section 737(1) of the Criminal Code to be of no force or effect under section 52 of the Charter.