Ana Serban

This decision addresses whether the accused, Peter Nygard, put his character in issue during his evidence-in-chief in a multi-complainant sexual assault trial, and the resulting scope of permitted Crown cross-examination.

The court found that Nygard did put his character in issue by repeatedly asserting he was not the type of person to commit the offences charged.

The ruling details the careful limits placed on the Crown’s cross-examination to avoid undue prejudice, and provides a thorough analysis of the law regarding character evidence and rebuttal in criminal trials.

The court considered 19 charges against MB, including human trafficking, procuring, and related offences, all arising from his relationship with the complainant, AAP.

The evidence, primarily from AAP, was found to be unreliable due to memory gaps, inconsistencies, and lack of corroboration.

While some technological and witness evidence supported parts of AAP’s narrative, significant contradictions and missing evidence (such as banking records and the content of communications) left the court unable to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The court sentenced D.A.L. for procuring H.S. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to section 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

The jury acquitted D.A.L. of all other charges, including human trafficking, receiving a material benefit, advertising, and violence-related offences.

The court reviewed the factual background, pre-sentence report, victim impact statement, and letters of support.

The Crown sought a two-year custodial sentence, while the defence argued for an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the vulnerability of the complainant, the offender’s lack of criminal record, his rehabilitation, and collateral immigration consequences.

After reviewing relevant case law and the unique circumstances, the court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence (minus 31 days for pretrial custody), to be served under house arrest, followed by 12 months’ probation, with additional conditions and a DNA order.

The applicant, Marcus Bryan, facing charges including human trafficking, sought a Stage 2 ruling under s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The court granted the application in part, allowing limited questioning on the complainant's prior and ongoing involvement in sex work, her use of advertising websites, earnings, and work for other individuals, as well as the nature and conclusion of her relationship with the applicant.

The court found this evidence relevant to the defence narrative and to challenge the complainant's credibility, provided it did not engage the "twin myths" and had significant probative value.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to adduce count-to-count similar fact evidence against Peter Nygard in his sexual assault trial.

The court granted the application, finding a significant degree of similarity in the alleged acts and circumstances, which demonstrated a specific propensity and connected to the issues of actus reus and complainant credibility.

The similarities included the use of a unique, hidden private space at 1 Niagara Street, Mr. Nygard's control over access, aggressive physical assaults, berating of complainants, and the use of his wealth and power to lure victims.

The court also addressed the defence's arguments regarding tainting and collusion, concluding that while an opportunity for inadvertent tainting existed due to media reports and shared therapy, there was no air of reality to actual collusion, and the issue of reliability was left to the jury.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to admit expert evidence from Dr. Lori Haskell on the neurobiology of trauma in a sexual assault trial against Peter Nygard.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the evidence was irrelevant, unnecessary, and that Dr. Haskell was not properly qualified.

The court applied the Mohan framework and a cost-benefit analysis, finding the evidence relevant to disabuse the jury of myths and stereotypes about victim behaviour, necessary to assist in credibility assessment, and that Dr. Haskell possessed the requisite expertise.

The application was allowed, permitting Dr. Haskell to testify for the limited purpose of explaining general responses to trauma.

The Crown applied to introduce similar fact evidence from a ninth complainant (S.R.) in a sexual assault and forcible confinement trial against Peter Nygard.

The court analyzed the probative value of S.R.'s evidence, considering similarities with the on-indictment complainants, potential for collusion, and credibility issues.

The judge found sufficient similarity and high probative value, concluding that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, and allowed the Crown's application.

The accused, a 22-year-old Black male with no prior criminal record, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm and an over-capacity magazine found in his bedroom.

The court considered the accused's background, including experiences with anti-Black racism and his status as a first-time offender, applying the principles of restraint and rehabilitation under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

A sentence of two years was imposed, but after applying Summers credits (1.5:1) and Duncan credits (2:1 for lockdown conditions) for pre-trial custody, the accused was sentenced to time served and 18 months of probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm and two counts of possession of a prohibited firearm without a licence.

Police found an AR-15 assault rifle and a sawed-off Cooey rifle in an unsecured backpack in the hallway of the accused's apartment, where he lived with his common-law spouse and three-year-old daughter.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the presence of a child, and the defaced serial numbers as aggravating factors, while the guilty plea and the accused's rehabilitation prospects were mitigating.

The court determined a fit sentence was 4 years, reduced by 1 year for exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns and COVID-19.

After applying Summers credit, the remaining 327 days were ordered to be served as a conditional sentence.

The applicant, Abdirisaq Muse, sought a mistrial after being found guilty by a jury, arguing that the jury was improperly constituted due to the retrospective application of Bill C-75, which abolished peremptory challenges.

This application followed the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Chouhan, which held that the amendments regarding peremptory challenges were to be applied prospectively, contrary to the trial judge's initial ruling.

The Crown argued that the court was functus officio post-verdict and that the narrow exceptions to this rule did not apply.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to declare a mistrial post-verdict, except for specific, inapplicable exceptions.