A. Fedak-Tarnopolsky

The accused, a youthful offender, was sentenced for his participation in a bank robbery where approximately $100,000 remained unrecovered.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary term, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the accused's rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months less pre-trial custody credit, along with a $50,000 restitution order and ancillary orders.

The accused brought pre-trial applications alleging racial profiling by police, breach of his right to counsel, and seeking to quash a search warrant for his vehicle.

The accused also sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant.

The court dismissed the application to cross-examine the affiant, finding no reasonable likelihood it would assist in challenging the warrant.

The court rejected the accused's evidence entirely, finding the police officer recognized the accused from a recent shooting investigation and did not engage in racial profiling when running his license plate.

The court found the accused was properly provided his right to counsel and that the search warrant was validly issued based on reasonable and probable grounds.

In an addendum to the original reasons for judgment, the court clarified that consent was not a defence in law to the charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

Because the complainant was 14 years old and the accused was 21, the age difference exceeded five years, triggering the application of section 150.1(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, a 21-year-old man, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of recognizance after engaging in sexual activity with a 14-year-old complainant who had a profound intellectual disability.

The court found that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent and that the accused was wilfully blind to her incapacity, failing to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

Furthermore, the court rejected the accused's mistake of age defence, finding he ignored obvious warning signs regarding her age and developmental level and failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain her true age.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

During a trial for sexual assault and sexual interference, the Crown applied to admit expert evidence from a clinical psychologist regarding the suggestibility and acquiescence to leading questions of the complainant, who suffers from intellectual disabilities.

The court applied the Mohan criteria for the admission of expert evidence, focusing on the necessity requirement.

The court held that the suggestibility of a person functioning at a 4-7 year old cognitive level is a matter of common sense and judicial experience, and therefore expert evidence was not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

The application was dismissed.