Anne Marie Mc Elroy

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an alleged historical incident involving a child complainant.

The court reviewed the complainant’s testimony, a prior video statement admitted under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, the evidence of the first disclosure witness, and the accused’s denial under the W.(D.) framework.

While the court rejected the defence evidence on several points, it found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence affecting reliability and credibility on material matters.

Applying the criminal standard of proof and cautioning against myths about delayed disclosure, the court held the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of H.E. on a charge of sexual assault against his wife.

The trial judge had accepted the complainant's testimony regarding the assault but acquitted the accused based on a reasonable doubt about whether he possessed the required mens rea, citing factors including the complainant's delay in reporting and continued sexual relations with the accused.

The appellate court found that the trial judge committed reversible errors by considering an honest but mistaken belief in consent defence that was not raised at trial, by relying on a shared mistaken belief about marital rights that cannot form the basis for such a defence, and by considering factors that were irrelevant to the accused's state of mind.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and ordered a new trial.

The applicants sought disclosure of the complete investigative file relating to a homicide investigation that formed the basis for wiretap authorizations under Part VI of the Criminal Code.

The Crown resisted disclosure, arguing that materials not explicitly relied upon in the Information to Obtain were irrelevant and protected by public interest privilege.

The court held that the accused's right to make full answer and defence applies to pre-trial evidentiary hearings, including Garofoli applications.

The court established that materials in the "investigative file" are presumptively relevant and should be disclosed, defined as all materials accumulated by the investigating agency as a consequence of its investigative efforts in the investigation giving rise to the authorization itself.

The court ordered disclosure of specified materials from the homicide investigation file, subject to redactions protecting informer privilege, while declining to order disclosure of the entire investigative file to prevent needless complexity.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100ml.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, challenging the validity of the Approved Screening Device demand and seeking exclusion of breath readings.

The court found that the officer had articulable cause to investigate the accused based on common law powers, that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol consumption based on the totality of circumstances, and that the ASD demand was validly made forthwith.

The court dismissed the Charter application, admitted the breath evidence, and found the accused guilty of the "over 80" offence while acquitting on the impaired care or control charge due to insufficient evidence.

The accused was convicted after trial of two counts of sexual assault arising from incidents involving non-consensual touching of a cognitively delayed adult woman during a social gathering.

The court considered aggravating factors including the complainant’s vulnerability, the offender’s prior sexual assault conviction, and intoxication at the time of the offence.

Mitigating factors included the relatively low level of physical intrusion, partial acceptance of responsibility, mental health issues, and a low to moderate assessed risk of reoffending if sober.

Applying the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence under the Criminal Code, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation and several ancillary orders.

The sentence also included treatment conditions, a firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and registration under the national sex offender registry.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a cognitively delayed adult complainant.

The incidents allegedly occurred in the bathroom and kitchen of an apartment where both were guests.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent.

Despite some inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the court found the core allegations corroborated by a witness and the accused's own admissions of uninvited touching.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and two counts of breach of recognizance, and sentenced to 40 months' imprisonment in addition to 16 months' pre-trial custody.

The appellant, a first offender with a history of serious mental illness, appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal reviewed institutional records indicating the appellant had resisted treatment in custody.

Given the brutality of the assault and the risk posed to the community, the Court found no error by the trial judge and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed a conviction for possession of child pornography found on a shared home computer, arguing that the trial judge failed to explain why he accepted the estranged spouse’s evidence and rejected the appellant’s denial.

The court held that, in a case turning on credibility and conflicting evidence about who was responsible for the material, the reasons did not adequately reconcile significant contradictions or explain why no reasonable doubt remained.

The court also identified material misapprehensions of the forensic and testimonial evidence.

Applying the functional approach to sufficiency of reasons, the court concluded that meaningful appellate review was foreclosed and the verdict was unsafe.