A. Penny

The Crown sought to admit out-of-court hearsay statements made by the complainant, W.W., an adult with Down Syndrome, in a sexual assault trial.

The court assessed the admissibility under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, focusing on necessity and threshold reliability.

The court found W.W. incapable of testifying meaningfully due to her communication limitations, thus establishing necessity.

Reliability was established based on the circumstances of the statements, including their spontaneity, corroborating behavioral changes, lack of motive to fabricate, and the declarant's relationship with the recipients.

The statements were deemed admissible.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Exceed 80 following a roadside stop for a Highway Traffic Act infraction.

The trial proceeded as a blended hearing on consent due to Charter issues.

The court found that the accused's s. 10(b) rights were breached when the breathalyzer technician failed to offer a further opportunity for legal consultation despite objective indicators that the accused was confused about his rights and obligations.

The breath readings were excluded under s. 24(2) as their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

However, the court found the accused guilty of Operation Impaired based on observations of impairment preceding the Charter breach.

The court also addressed the retrospective application of the presumption of identity in transition cases under Bill C-46.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent act arising from an April 10, 2018 encounter with the complainant.

The complainant alleged that after consensual socializing at the accused's apartment, the accused sexually assaulted her both at the apartment and subsequently in his vehicle while driving her home.

The accused admitted to minor sexual contact but claimed it was consensual.

The court found credibility issues with all three witnesses and determined that the evidence, when considered holistically, raised a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.

The charges were dismissed.

Sentencing decision following conviction for aggravated assault and weapons dangerous.

The accused stabbed the victim once in the cardiac box during an altercation, causing catastrophic injuries including cardiac arrest, anoxic brain injury, and permanent cognitive and functional impairment.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years on the aggravated assault charge, with 12 months concurrent on the weapons charge, resulting in a net sentence of 1.5 years after crediting 2 years of pretrial custody.

The court applied collateral consequence credit of 3 months for harsh incarceration conditions, resulting in a final net sentence of 15 months, followed by 2 years probation with conditions including no contact with the victim, counselling, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with attempt murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace following an incident on April 30, 2018, in which he allegedly stabbed the victim in the chest with a sharp object, causing a life-threatening cardiac injury and anoxic brain injury.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony, surveillance video evidence, and recognition evidence from police officers with prior acquaintance with the accused.

The trial judge found the identification evidence compelling through a combination of facial features, distinctive tattoos, clothing, and circumstantial factors including the suspect's proximity to the accused's residence and the timeline of events.

The court convicted on aggravated assault and weapons charges but acquitted on attempt murder, finding insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Operation Over 80 following a single-vehicle collision with a guardrail on Highway 401.

The Crown alleged the defendant drove while having more than the legal limit of alcohol in his system.

The defence raised three issues: a breach of s. 10(b) Charter rights, that breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable, and that the Crown failed to prove impairment.

The court found no meaningful breach of Charter rights, that the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable within the circumstances, and that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts, with the Operation Impaired charge stayed.

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 and Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act after being stopped for speeding at 157 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The officer detected signs of impairment and administered a roadside screening device test, which registered a fail.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples at the police detachment.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the roadside screening device result on the basis that the device's calibration status was uncertain, and argued that the breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found that the officer had an objectively reasonable basis for believing the device was in proper working order based on the recent accuracy check and the device's operational indicators, and that the breath tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances.

The accused was charged with forcibly confining his wife and two children, and assaulting his wife, arising from an incident at the family home on August 15, 2016, when a fire broke out.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the wife's statement to police, which she recanted at trial.

The children's testimony was largely based on what they overheard their mother tell their aunt rather than direct observation.

The accused testified that he did not assault his wife and did not prevent anyone from leaving the house.

The court found the accused not guilty on all counts, determining that the evidence raised reasonable doubt and that the wife's trial testimony was more reliable than her police statement.

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting the victim following a street altercation.

The victim suffered significant injuries including loss of consciousness and facial trauma.

The accused was 18 years old at the time of the offence and had no criminal record, though was bound by a common-law peace bond.

The Crown sought a 60-day conditional sentence plus one year probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 30 months probation, finding that despite the seriousness of the violence, the accused's exemplary character, remorse, and future prospects warranted this disposition.

The defendant, CH, was found guilty of assault and breach of a probation order, marking his third conviction for domestic assault against the same complainant.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence for assault and a consecutive 6 months for breach of probation, plus 3 years' probation.

The defence requested a 90-day concurrent 30-day custodial period.

The court considered aggravating factors including the repeated and escalating nature of the domestic violence, the complainant's psychological vulnerability, and the defendant's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's diagnosed schizophrenia and significant pre-trial custody spent in a medical facility.

The court sentenced CH to 12 months in custody followed by 2 years' probation.

Due to credit for 21 months and 6 days of pre-trial custody, the custodial portion was deemed served, and CH was to begin probation immediately.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a 3-year no-contact order with the complainant.