2 total
An absolute discharge was granted for an assault by choking conviction due to the offender's reduced moral culpability and significant collateral consequences.
Following a judge-alone trial on May 21, 2025, the accused was found guilty of assault by choking contrary to section 267(c) of the Criminal Code and not guilty of simple assault.
At sentencing on September 9, 2025, the court imposed an absolute discharge with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, victim fine surcharge, and a 12-month peace bond.
The Crown sought 60 days incarceration plus 12 months probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.
The court found that while the offence involved intimate partner violence, the unique circumstances—including the accused's reduced moral culpability, first-time offender status, extensive rehabilitation efforts, and significant collateral consequences—warranted a discharge rather than incarceration.
The court acquitted the accused of sexual assault due to the complainant's inconsistent evidence.
The accused, A.M.T., was charged with sexual assault.
The sole issue at trial was initially presented as identity, but the court found that the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s account were also at issue.
The court reviewed the evidence, including inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, lack of corroborating evidence, and implausibilities in the narrative.
The court concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt and acquitted A.M.T.
