A. Mavridis

The accused, an educational aide, was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of a 12-year-old student.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable and contrived, noting significant inconsistencies regarding the location, timing, and circumstances of the alleged offences, as well as the complainant's history of behavioural challenges and deceitfulness.

The court accepted the accused's denial of wrongdoing as credible and acquitted her of all charges.

The accused was charged with historical sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose relating to an incident that allegedly occurred 30 years prior when the complainant was four years old.

The Crown alleged the accused sexually assaulted the complainant and transmitted gonorrhea to her.

The court found that while the complainant was sexually assaulted and contracted gonorrhea as a result, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The court noted inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and other Crown witnesses, and found the accused's denial to be credible and unshaken.

The accused was acquitted.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.D. framework and erred in assessing credibility.

An off-duty officer had observed the appellant driving erratically on Highway 401, which was captured on dash camera.

The appellant later crashed his vehicle and was arrested, exhibiting signs of impairment.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, did not reverse the onus, and sufficiently explained his reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence and accepting the officers' observations.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a Probation Order (x2), failing to comply with a Release Order, failing to comply with an undertaking, failing to comply with a Weapons Prohibition Order, and uttering a death threat.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the surety, who admitted to perjury at the bail hearing and had an extensive criminal record.

The court found the surety's evidence unreliable due to his credibility issues, lack of corroborating evidence, and the substantial amount of alcohol and drugs he consumed on the evening in question.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.