Bally S. Hundal

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the Crown’s appeal from an acquittal on a charge of sexual assault.

The Crown argued that the trial judge relied on myths and stereotypes about how a sexual assault victim should behave, particularly in finding it significant that the complainant returned to sleep in the same bed as the accused after the alleged assault.

The Court found that the trial judge did err in law by relying on such stereotypes, but held that the error did not have a material bearing on the acquittal, as the trial judge’s reasonable doubt was also based on other concerns about the complainant’s reliability and inconsistencies in her evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, H.P., was charged with five sexual offences against his step-daughter, K.T., including sexual assault, sexual exploitation, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching, spanning from June 2018 to February 2020.

The trial focused on the credibility of the complainant's testimony versus the accused's denials.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling and reliable, supported by an audio recording, and rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and fabricated.

H.P. was found guilty on all five counts.

The applicant, D.P., sought a review of a detention order for multiple sexual assault charges.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, requiring a de novo review of the detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the proposed bail plan, even with electronic monitoring and increased surety, insufficient to address public safety concerns given the nature of the alleged serial sexual assaults and the sureties' inability to supervise.

The court also found that releasing the applicant would erode public confidence in the administration of justice due to the gravity of the offences, the strong Crown case, and the horrifying circumstances, despite the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on detention centers.

The application for review of the detention order was dismissed.

The Crown sought a bail review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the accused, A.K., on a $1,500 surety release with conditions, following a charge of uttering threats to cause death.

The Crown argued that the Justice of the Peace erred by denying cross-examination of the proposed surety and that the release decision was clearly inappropriate, particularly given A.K.'s criminal record for violent offences and the reverse onus situation.

The reviewing judge found no error in denying cross-examination, affirming that leave is required and was not arbitrarily denied.

The judge also found the release decision not clearly inappropriate, but varied the security amount from $1,500 to $3,500 due to A.K.'s past violent convictions.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to provide a breath sample in response to an approved screening device demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

Following a routine vehicle stop for suspected impaired driving, the defendant made four attempts to provide a breath sample but appeared to make no genuine effort to blow into the device.

After being warned of the consequences, the defendant expressly refused to provide a sample.

The court found the defendant guilty, accepting the officer's evidence over the defendant's testimony that he had made genuine efforts but was physically unable to comply due to being handcuffed.

The court also found that the defendant had been unlawfully handcuffed during the breath testing process, violating section 9 of the Charter, but admitted the evidence under section 24(2) as the seriousness of the breach was attenuated by the officer's junior status and imperfect legal knowledge at the time.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault alleged to have occurred on an Air Canada flight from Toronto to New Delhi on October 28, 2016.

The complainant testified that while she was sleeping, the accused placed her hand on his erect penis.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the complainant had fallen asleep with her head on his shoulder.

The trial judge found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly when compared to the testimony of the Air Canada Service Director.

While the judge believed something occurred on the flight, the reliability of the complainant's evidence was undermined by multiple inconsistencies regarding the timing of the incident, how the flight attendant became aware of the complaint, and the nature of the touching.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor.

The Crown presented evidence from two complainants and an undercover police officer, all of whom described similar patterns of sexually inappropriate conduct during taxi rides.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming intoxication on the part of the complainants and accidental contact.

The court found the complainants and undercover officer credible and rejected the accused's testimony as inconsistent and evasive.

The court convicted on two counts: sexual interference with a minor and sexual assault.

A stay was entered on the third count (sexual assault of the minor) pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was convicted after trial of assaulting his spouse between July 1-31, 2008, assaulting her on August 18, 2008 causing bodily harm, and sexually assaulting her between September-December 2008.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; the defence sought two to three years.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as paramount in domestic violence cases.

The sentence comprised three years for sexual assault and one year for assault causing bodily harm, with the assault charge concurrent.

Ancillary orders included DNA collection, a 10-year weapons prohibition, 20-year sex offender registry requirement, and a no-contact order.

The defendant was charged with three offences against his wife: assault (July 1-31, 2008), assault causing bodily harm (August 18, 2008), and sexual assault (September-December 2008).

The trial was a credibility contest between the complainant and the defendant.

The complainant testified that the defendant assaulted her after discovering her long-standing extramarital affair, and later forced her to have non-consensual anal sex.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming the complainant fell down stairs and that any sexual contact was consensual.

The court found the complainant credible and the defendant's evidence internally and externally inconsistent.

The defendant was convicted on all three counts.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against his spouse occurring on April 23 and 25, 2011.

The complainant testified that the accused pushed her against a wall, struck her with his hand, and threatened her during arguments related to their separation.

The accused denied the allegations, admitting only to a slap in 2006.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was sympathetic and the bruising on her arm supported her account, the accused's testimony, though containing some difficulties and contradictions, was not significantly challenged in cross-examination.

The court concluded that reasonable doubt existed and acquitted the accused on both counts.