A. A. Falls

Following a guilty plea to attempted robbery arising from a fake bomb threat at a cash store, the applicant sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that the arresting officer used excessive force contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

The court rejected the applicant’s account that he was surrendering when kicked and accepted the police evidence that he was fleeing, ignoring repeated commands, holding what appeared to be a detonator, and remained an ongoing threat in a rapidly evolving public-safety emergency.

Applying the modified objective approach to police use of force and the jurisprudence on abuse of process stays, the court held the single takedown kick was a necessary, reasonable, and proportionate response.

No Charter breach or abuse of process was established, and the application to stay the entry of conviction was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats against an intimate partner, and pleaded guilty to attempting to obstruct justice by instructing the complainant to recant her evidence.

The trial focused primarily on whether sexual intercourse in the complainant’s bedroom occurred without consent following a relationship breakdown triggered by the accused’s infidelity.

The court applied the governing principles on consent and honest but mistaken belief in consent under the Criminal Code and leading authorities including Ewanchuk and J.A. The complainant’s evidence that she verbally and physically resisted sexual advances was accepted as credible, while the accused’s claim of consensual intercourse based on prior relationship dynamics and non-verbal cues was rejected.

The court found the Crown proved sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt but held that the assault and uttering threats allegations were not established to the required standard.