Ann Pollak

Dawn Gustafson applied for a Recognizance to Keep the Peace order against her brother, Grant Gustafson, under section 810 of the Criminal Code, following an incident involving verbal altercations and a dispute over parental finances.

The court, applying a civil standard of proof, found that the applicant did not have reasonable grounds for fear, as her actions during and after the incident contradicted her testimony of fear, and the respondent's conduct did not involve physical threats or property damage.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown applied to have the offender, R.R., declared a dangerous offender following convictions for two counts of sexual assault.

The defence sought a long-term offender designation.

The court considered R.R.'s extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assault convictions and uncharged allegations, a psychiatric assessment, and a Gladue report.

Applying the framework from R. v. Boutilier, the court found that while R.R. presented a risk of reoffending, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable," particularly considering his age, future incarceration, and the availability of new correctional programs.

Consequently, the court did not designate R.R. a dangerous offender but found him to be a long-term offender, imposing a further 33 months imprisonment and 10 years of long-term supervision with specific conditions.

The accused, R.N., was charged with aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault against her six-year-old stepson, L.C. The trial involved extensive testimony from L.C., his father, step-sister, classmates, school staff, foster parents, and medical experts.

L.C.'s testimony was inconsistent across multiple interviews and at trial, raising serious concerns about its reliability and credibility.

The step-sister's testimony also changed over time, potentially influenced by an acrimonious custody dispute.

Evidence from L.C.'s classmates suggested he might have been injured at school.

Medical evidence confirmed severe injuries but acknowledged alternative accidental scenarios.

The court found that the Crown had not proven R.N.'s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to the inconsistencies and reliability issues in the key witness testimonies.