Breese Davies

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference against his girlfriend's two daughters over a three-year period ending in 2004.

The complainants, now adults, testified that the accused entered their bedrooms at night while they slept and engaged in inappropriate sexual touching.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainants credible and reliable witnesses, rejected the accused's minimization of his presence in the home, and found him guilty on all four counts.

The court also addressed the admissibility of similar fact evidence and found no collusion between the complainants despite the opportunity for communication.

Two separate appeals concerning the entrapment defence in dial-a-dope drug trafficking investigations.

In Williams' case, the trial judge found entrapment and stayed drug trafficking charges, but the Crown appealed.

In Ahmad's case, the trial judge rejected an entrapment application and convicted the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that police may provide opportunities to sell drugs to persons associated with phone lines reasonably suspected of being used in dial-a-dope operations, even without reasonable suspicion that those individuals are engaged in criminal activity, provided the police are conducting a bona fide inquiry.

The majority found no entrapment in either case.

The concurrence reached the same result but on the basis that police had reasonable suspicion that both accused were engaged in criminal activity.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, sexual exploitation, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his step-daughter.

The sole ground of appeal was ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The appellant alleged that his trial counsel filed a false affidavit in support of a bail review application, failed to prepare him for trial, made incorrect legal arguments, and failed to effectively cross-examine Crown witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown presented an overwhelming case with strong corroborating evidence, including the appellant's confessions to family members, possession of condoms, and his flight from the country.

The court concluded that even without the alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance, the verdict would not have been different and the trial was not rendered unfair.

The accused, a nurse, was charged with sexual assault against a complainant who was brought to a hospital emergency room in a highly intoxicated and unresponsive state.

The complainant alleged that the accused engaged in multiple instances of inappropriate touching, including fondling her breasts and placing her hand on his genitals while inserting an intravenous line.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her impaired cognitive state, internal inconsistencies, and demonstrated motive to tailor her testimony.

A credible eyewitness who observed the relevant portion of the alleged assault testified that he did not see any of the alleged inappropriate conduct.

The accused's evidence was consistent with the eyewitness account and video evidence.

The charge was dismissed.

The Crown sought to adduce similar act evidence based on video surveillance footage showing the defendant standing in close proximity to two unknown women in a grocery store, allegedly engaging in conduct similar to the charged sexual assault of the complainant.

The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting a woman at a checkout counter by touching her buttocks three times in a deliberate manner.

The Crown argued that two other incidents captured on video—one occurring minutes before and one after the alleged assault—demonstrated a pattern of similar groping conduct.

The defence opposed admission, arguing the evidence was insufficiently similar and that the video footage was ambiguous and incapable of proving the alleged similar acts.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that neither incident shown on video demonstrated striking similarity to the charged conduct and that the evidence was not capable of proving the alleged similar acts to the requisite degree of certainty.

The hospital appealed a mandatory order from the Ontario Review Board requiring it to provide up to two escorted visits per year for a forensic patient to his mother's home for dinner.

The patient had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual assault offences and had been detained in maximum security since 1989.

The Review Board initially made the visits discretionary but amended its disposition to make them mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the hospital's appeal, finding that the board erred in law and acted unreasonably by imposing a mandatory order without discretion.

The court held that while the board may encourage the hospital to create community visit programs, the terms must remain discretionary to allow the hospital to consider staff availability, patient stability, and the consent of the person to be visited.

The accused, a teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of a nine-year-old student in a school portable.

The trial judge assessed the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's evidence, noting several inconsistencies and a fabricated sighting of the accused after his arrest.

Applying the principles for assessing children's evidence, the court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The accused, Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser, were convicted by a jury of multiple terrorism offences, including conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group and participating in the activities of a terrorist group.

The offences involved a plot to derail a VIA passenger train and discussions of a sniper plot to assassinate prominent individuals.

At sentencing, Jaser argued for a reduced sentence based on alleged entrapment, drug addiction, and insincere religious beliefs, relying on expert psychological evidence.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the expert evidence inadmissible and contrary to the jury's verdicts.

For Esseghaier, who was self-represented, amicus curiae raised issues of fitness and mental illness.

The court found Esseghaier fit to be sentenced and concluded that any present mental illness was not causally linked to the offences committed in 2012.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for terrorism offences designed to cause indiscriminate killing, the court sentenced both accused to life imprisonment for the murder conspiracy, with concurrent determinate sentences for the other offences, and ordered a 10-year period of parole ineligibility.

During the sentencing hearing for two accused convicted of terrorism offences, amicus and the Crown sought a psychiatric assessment of one of the accused to determine his fitness.

The court held that there is no jurisdiction under the Criminal Code to order a fitness assessment after a verdict has been rendered.

However, the court found reasonable grounds to order a further psychiatric assessment under s. 21 of the Ontario Mental Health Act, noting flaws in a previous psychiatric report that had improperly modified the legal test for fitness.

In advance of a high‑profile terrorism prosecution, the court determined several issues concerning jury selection.

The Crown and defence jointly sought rulings regarding the appointment of additional jurors under s. 631(2.2) of the Criminal Code, the scope of challenge for cause based on pre‑trial publicity and racial or religious prejudice, and the procedure for determining those challenges.

The court held that the anticipated length and complexity of the trial justified appointing two additional jurors to minimize the risk of mistrial.

It permitted challenge for cause using six structured questions addressing exposure to publicity and potential bias relating to visible minority status and religion.

The court also ordered the exclusion of all jurors during the challenge process under s. 640(2.1) and directed that challenges be decided by static triers pursuant to s. 640(2.2) to preserve juror impartiality.

Pre‑trial evidentiary motion concerning proposed redactions to intercepted wiretap conversations in a terrorism prosecution.

Defence counsel sought editing of eight passages on the basis that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value under the common law exclusionary discretion.

The court applied the probative‑value versus prejudice balancing analysis and concluded that certain passages referencing derogatory comments about Jews, references to Osama bin Laden, and discussions of adultery punishments should be edited because they were minimally probative and risked inflammatory jury prejudice.

However, proposed edits relating to references to bombs and bomb‑making were refused because they were relevant to the alleged conspiracies and the relationship between participants.

The motion was therefore granted in part and dismissed in part.

Sentencing for offences involving possession of a handgun without a licence or registration certificate, carrying a concealed weapon, and multiple breaches of recognizance conditions.

The accused was arrested in a public place with a handgun, ammunition incompatible with the firearm, drugs, and multiple cell phones while on bail.

The court emphasized the importance of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public in handgun cases, while also considering the offender’s youth, rehabilitative efforts, supportive community ties, and positive pre‑sentence report.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as insufficient to meet sentencing objectives but determined that a penitentiary sentence was unnecessary.

A total custodial sentence of 21 months was imposed, reduced after credit for pre‑sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused faced charges for trafficking crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime arising from undercover drug purchases arranged through a police cold call.

After the Crown’s case, the accused conceded the evidence established guilt but applied for a stay based on entrapment.

The court held that the police lacked reasonable suspicion before contacting the accused because the investigation relied on an unverified confidential tip with no information about reliability, currency, or source credibility.

The undercover officer’s immediate request to purchase a specific quantity of drugs constituted an opportunity to commit an offence rather than a preliminary investigative step.

As the opportunity was provided without reasonable suspicion, the conduct amounted to entrapment and the proceedings were stayed.

In a pair of extradition appeals, the Court held that surrender of Canadian citizens to the United States on terrorism-related charges did not unjustifiably infringe mobility rights under s. 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court reaffirmed that extradition generally constitutes a marginal limitation on the right to remain in Canada and that ministerial balancing under the established multi-factor framework attracts substantial deference.

It rejected arguments that weak foreign jurisdiction or feasible domestic prosecution should be near-dispositive limits on surrender.

The Court also held that procedural fairness did not require the Minister to obtain and disclose prosecutorial assessments about whether to proceed domestically.

The surrender decisions were found reasonable on the record, and both appeals were dismissed.

The Crown sought an adjournment of a scheduled Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) hearing on the grounds that its key psychiatric witness, Dr. McDonald, was unavailable.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the Crown had failed to exercise due diligence in securing the witness's attendance despite having known the hearing date for eight months.

The court noted that the accused had made significant progress in treatment and rehabilitation since his release on bail, and that the Crown had failed to meet the established test for adjournment under R. v. Darville.

The court proceeded to sentencing based on the accused's guilty pleas.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after a sudden and unprovoked knife attack on a stranger at a public gym.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the victim impact, and the offender’s personal circumstances including a history of depression, substance abuse, and psychological stressors.

Psychiatric evidence indicated that while the offender had a major depressive disorder, it was likely in remission and did not significantly mitigate moral blameworthiness.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for a vicious public attack with a weapon, the court determined that a fit sentence would have been 4½ years’ imprisonment.

After granting limited enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 36 months.