Antonio Skarica

The accused, charged with aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to the complainant, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The accused sought to cross-examine the complainant on prior inconsistent statements regarding his sexual practices and to introduce evidence of a pattern of risky sexual behaviour to argue the complainant would have consented even if he knew of the accused's HIV status.

The court allowed the cross-examination on the prior inconsistent statements, finding them highly relevant to credibility.

However, the court dismissed the application to introduce evidence of the complainant's pattern of risky sexual behaviour, finding its probative value did not outweigh the prejudicial effect and risk of discriminatory bias.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision that ordered them to repay a $21,885.40 commercial debt to the respondent but refused to allow their counterclaim for equitable set-off of $20,886.37 in unpaid legal fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law.

The court held that the two transactions were sufficiently close in time and context between the same parties to warrant equitable set-off, making it manifestly unjust to allow the respondent to enforce repayment without accounting for the cross-claim.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 51.06 seeking dismissal of the action based on alleged admissions concerning the lease and the proper party to advance the claim.

The plaintiff also moved under Rules 5.04(2) and 26.01 to amend its statement of claim to add several affiliated corporate plaintiffs asserting losses arising from the failure of a franchised coffee shop allegedly caused by the landlord’s breach of a commercial lease.

The court held that the defendant failed to establish the stringent requirements for judgment based on admissions under Rule 51.06 because material factual and legal issues remained for trial, including interpretation of the lease obligations regarding paving.

The court further held that adding the proposed corporate plaintiffs after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period constituted the addition of new parties rather than correction of a misnomer.

Relying on appellate authority, the court found that the proposed amendment would violate the Limitations Act, 2002 and cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The accused was charged with nine offences, including robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of an imitation firearm, following a violent home invasion.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's possession of stolen property shortly after the robbery, cell phone records, and DNA evidence linking the victim's blood to a jacket found in the accused's bedroom.

The accused raised an alibi defence through his girlfriend's testimony.

The court rejected the alibi evidence as not credible and applied the doctrine of recent possession and the test for circumstantial evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding he was a party to the common intention to commit the armed robbery and that the aggravated assault was objectively foreseeable.