Aaron Seib

This decision addresses the acquittal of Cadence Kakepetum on a charge of aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code.

The court analyzed conflicting witness testimony, including that of a reluctant civilian witness, a co-accused youth who pled guilty, and an intoxicated bystander, alongside forensic evidence such as blood spatter and CCTV footage.

Applying the three-prong test from R. v. W.D. and considering the guidance from R. v. Hoohing and R. v. J.D., the court found reasonable doubt as to Ms. Kakepetum’s participation in the assault.

The forensic evidence and video corroborated her version of events, while the credibility of other witnesses was undermined by inconsistencies, intoxication, and self-serving testimony.

The accused was therefore acquitted.

The applicant, Brayden Lawson, sought a judicial stay of proceedings under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to the loss of relevant evidence (water bottles allegedly containing MDMA).

The Crown conceded a section 7 breach and consented to a judicial stay for the two charges related to administering MDMA.

The court granted the stay for those two counts, finding the lost evidence clearly relevant and its loss attributable to state negligence.

However, the court dismissed the application for a stay on the remaining six charges, concluding that while the lost evidence was not irrelevant to the complainants' credibility, the applicant's ability to make full answer and defence was not impaired to the extent that a fundamentally fair trial could not be held, given other available evidence for cross-examination.

Joshua Normand pleaded guilty to mischief, criminal harassment, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and unsafe storage of a firearm, stemming from a tumultuous domestic relationship.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the domestic context, the dangerous use of loaded firearms in a public place, and the significant trauma inflicted on the victims.

Mitigating factors included Normand's Indigenous heritage (Gladue factors), his guilty plea, and his efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The court also addressed a "Duncan application" for enhanced credit for exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, granting some additional credit beyond the standard Summers credit, but denying credit for general COVID-19 impacts.

The final sentence was 4 years of custody, reduced by time served, followed by a 3-year probation period with strict conditions.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct in a sexual assault case involving his biological daughters.

The Crown argued the evidence was probative of the actus reus and corroborated the complainant's allegations that the accused, while intoxicated and in police uniform, used his service revolver to threaten her.

The accused contended the evidence was largely inadmissible hearsay, intrinsically weak, and lacked probative value.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding the proffered evidence irrelevant and insufficient to establish the alleged conduct, thus failing to meet the threshold for admissibility of similar fact evidence.

The accused was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old victim.

The assault occurred in the early morning hours when the victim was asleep and naked in her home on a rural property.

The accused, who was the victim's step-uncle, touched the victim's breast and vagina without consent.

The victim pushed him away and he left.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 6 to 9 months imprisonment plus probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or alternatively 60 to 90 days intermittent custody.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 9 months followed by 24 months probation, finding that the assault fell within the mid-range of sexual assaults and involved significant aggravating factors including the victim's age, breach of trust, and substantial impact on the victim.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

A police officer responded to a complaint of a possible impaired driver refused service at a beer store and located the accused sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle in a parking lot.

The officer observed signs of impairment including slurred speech, glossy eyes, strong odour of alcohol, and lack of coordination.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples showing readings of 100 mg and 90 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The defence argued Charter breaches under sections 8 and 9 regarding arbitrary detention and unlawful search, and that no authority existed to stop a vehicle in a parking lot.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, no Charter breach, and convicted the accused of care and control over 80 mg, with a conditional stay on the impaired care and control charge.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of a 17-year-old complainant on December 17, 2014.

The Crown alleged that the accused attended the complainant's residence in the early morning hours and sexually assaulted her by touching her breast and vagina without consent.

The accused denied the allegations entirely.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility and found the accused's testimony unreliable due to material inconsistencies with his police statement and implausible explanations for DNA evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and found that the accused had both motive and opportunity to commit the offence.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to three charges: sexual assault of a child under 16 years of age, possession of child pornography, and production of child pornography.

The offences occurred between 2012 and 2014 and involved an eight-year-old child.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, less pre-trial detention and house arrest credits, resulting in 17 months incarceration.

The court considered Gladue principles, psychological assessment, victim impact, and sentencing principles emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for offences involving child abuse.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a female victim.

The victim was 12 years old at the time of the offence, and the accused was 18 years old.

The offence involved sexual activity including full intercourse on multiple occasions.

The court imposed a sentence of time-served (eight days pre-sentence custody credited as 12 days) plus six months imprisonment, followed by one year probation.

A 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order was imposed.

The court applied Gladue principles under section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, considering the accused's status as a member of a First Nation, his youth, and his lack of prior criminal record.

The court also considered the joint submission from Crown and defence counsel.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of incest involving his seven-year-old daughter, with two occurrences of digital penetration and anal intercourse occurring in January 2013.

The accused had a prior conviction for invitation to sexual touching when he was 17 years old.

The Crown sought a sentence of seven to ten years, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of five years.

The court imposed a sentence of eight years, finding that five years was insufficient given the aggravating factors including the position of trust, the young age of the victim, the prior sexual offense, the continued offending after being caught once, and the victim's severe psychological impact.

The court considered Gladue factors as the accused is an Aboriginal offender but found they did not warrant a lower sentence in these circumstances.

The accused, a former Catholic priest, was sentenced following guilty pleas to two counts of sexual assault (section 266 of the Criminal Code).

The offences occurred approximately 20 years prior and involved inappropriate sexual touching of two female parishioners.

The accused had fled to India in 1996 and remained there for 17 years before surrendering to authorities in March 2013 after his passport was suspended due to an outstanding warrant.

The court accepted a joint submission from the Crown and defence and imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation concurrent on both counts, along with conditions including written apologies to the victims and reporting requirements.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of sexual assault and assault arising from incidents occurring in October and December 2010 within an intimate relationship.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault arising from a later incident but contested the remaining charges.

The court found the complainant’s evidence regarding the alleged sexual assaults unreliable due to significant inconsistencies, contradictions with other witnesses, and post‑incident communications between the complainant and the accused that undermined her credibility.

Forensic evidence showing the accused’s DNA on vaginal and rectal swabs did not assist the Crown because it could not exclude consensual intercourse in the days preceding the examination.

The court convicted the accused of one count of assault but acquitted on the sexual assault counts and a further assault charge due to reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child.

The case turned primarily on the credibility of the complainant, who alleged multiple acts of penetration and sexual touching while staying overnight at a residence where the accused lived.

Despite several inconsistencies between the complainant’s trial testimony and earlier statements to police and at the preliminary inquiry, the court found the inconsistencies did not undermine the essential allegation of sexual assault.

The judge relied on principles governing the assessment of child witnesses and accepted corroborative evidence of prior inappropriate conduct and surrounding circumstances.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code and the sexual interference charge was stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The defendant was charged with 46 counts under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.

He brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence, arguing that the search violated his s. 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The defendant contended that the Information to Obtain lacked sufficient evidence that his residence was also his place of business, and that the search was therefore a fishing expedition.

The Crown argued that the Information to Obtain, reviewed holistically, contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support issuance of the warrant.

The court found that while the defendant's s. 8 Charter rights were violated due to insufficient evidence linking the residence to the business location, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the violation was minimal, the state did not act in bad faith, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits was strong.