2 total
Accused acquitted of causing workplace explosion; circumstantial evidence failed to exclude other reasonable inferences.
The accused was charged with causing an explosion at an automotive assembly plant following his vocal opposition to the employer's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a device found at the scene and statements made by the accused to co-workers.
The court found significant evidentiary gaps regarding the device's capacity to cause the explosion and concluded that the accused's statements could reasonably be inferred as attempts to gain social standing rather than admissions of guilt.
Applying the Villaroman framework for circumstantial evidence, the court held that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
The common law principle that consent cannot vitiate the intentional infliction of bodily harm during sexual acts is constitutional.
The applicants, charged with gang sexual assault and other offences, brought a constitutional challenge to the common law principle that a person cannot consent to the intentional infliction of bodily harm during sexual acts, including BDSM.
They argued this principle, particularly as affirmed in R. v. Zhao, violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression (s. 2(b)), liberty and security of the person (s. 7), and equality (s. 15).
The court dismissed the application, finding that violence is not a protected form of expression, that the right to liberty does not extend to inflicting bodily harm, and that BDSM is not an analogous ground for discrimination under s. 15.
The court upheld the common law principle as constitutional and justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter.
