Allan Brass

The accused, Tyler Floyd and Amanda Mailloux, were charged with multiple offences including distribution of child pornography, advertising sexual services, receiving material benefit from sexual services, recruiting for exploitation, forcible confinement, and assault causing bodily harm.

The complainant was a 15-year-old drug-addicted girl.

The court conducted a detailed credibility and reliability assessment of the complainant's evidence, noting significant memory issues, inconsistencies, and drug use impacting her testimony.

The court also considered the co-accused Ms. Mailloux's testimony and Mr. Floyd's police statement.

Ultimately, the court found reasonable doubt on most charges against both accused due to the complainant's unreliable evidence and inconsistencies.

Mr. Floyd was found not guilty of assault causing bodily harm but guilty of the lesser included offence of simple assault.

All other charges against both accused were dismissed.

During a trial for human trafficking and related offences, the accused brought an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant about her prior involvement in prostitution in the two weeks preceding the alleged offences.

The accused argued this evidence was relevant to whether the complainant was 'recruited' by them, which is an essential element of the offences charged.

The court granted the application, finding that the proposed evidence had significant probative value regarding the issue of recruitment and the complainant's credibility, and that this probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The accused sought to cross-examine the complainant on prior sexual activity during their trial for various sexual exploitation and child pornography offences.

The court addressed whether the s. 276 regime of the Criminal Code applied, given that the charged offences were not explicitly listed in s. 276(1).

Relying on the Supreme Court's broad interpretation in R. v. Barton, the court found that the s. 276 regime applied due to a sufficient connection between the charged offences and the listed offences, requiring the accused to bring a formal application to admit such evidence.

The accused, J.P., was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving a five-year-old complainant.

The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused being found naked in bed with the complainant whose shorts and underwear were down, inculpatory statements by the accused, and DNA evidence.

The court found the mother's evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies and emotional state, and the expert DNA evidence inconclusive regarding the source and timing of semen.

The accused's testimony was disbelieved due to inconsistencies.

However, considering the evidence as a whole, the court was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt, leading to dismissal of all charges.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and aggravated assault arising from an incident on October 28, 2011, where he struck the complainant with a golf club.

The central issue was whether the accused's use of force was justified as self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused had a reasonable perception of force or threat of force, acted with a defensive purpose, and that his response was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.