Allison Large

The accused, Michael Wilford, was charged with two counts of sexual assault.

The first count involved choking during consensual sexual intercourse, and the second involved non-consensual sexual activity while the complainant was feigning sleep.

The court applied principles of reasonable doubt and consent, including the "honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent" defence.

The court found the accused guilty of the first count, concluding that the choking was a sexual assault and that the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

For the second count, the court found the complainant's testimony lacked credibility and believed the accused's denial, resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant, S.K., was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada, involving non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the complainant, J.F., who was 15 years old at the time.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, establishing the actus reus of sexual assault.

Regarding mens rea, the court determined that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that S.K. did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and knew of, was wilfully blind to, or was reckless about the absence of consent.

The defendant was found guilty.

Peter Hiebert pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death under the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident involved failing to stop at a clearly marked intersection, resulting in a fatal collision.

The court accepted a joint submission for sentencing, which included a $4,000 fine, two years of probation with 150 hours of community service, and a three-year driving suspension.

Victim impact statements from the deceased's family were heard, emphasizing the profound loss and their desire for the defendant to learn and become a better person.

The judgment highlighted specific and general deterrence, noting the defendant's remorse and the importance of driver diligence.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown alleged the accused was observed driving erratically at high speed, including driving through a red light.

The defence challenged the reasonable grounds for arrest and the approved instrument demand, and alleged arbitrary detention contrary to section 9 of the Charter.

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds based on the totality of the driving observations and physical indicia.

The court rejected the arbitrary detention argument, finding the delay in release was reasonably explained by station circumstances.

The court convicted the accused on the impaired operation count and stayed the Over 80 count.