Brendan Thomas Coffey

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on multiple charges including assault and sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by adopting a "piecemeal" approach to assessing the evidence, specifically by discrediting the complainant's testimony before considering the probative force of a corroborating video.

This error might reasonably have had a material bearing on the acquittal.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered on all counts.

During the execution of an arrest warrant for a specific target at a residence, police officers entered the apartment and found the young person sleeping on a couch.

Despite having already arrested the target at the door, police detained the young person, ordered him to show his hands, and conducted a pat-down search citing officer safety, which led to the discovery of illegal drugs.

The young person brought a Charter application arguing arbitrary detention and denial of right to counsel.

The court found that the police exceeded their authority under the warrant by entering the home to check for other individuals, resulting in serious breaches of the young person's rights under sections 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) as admitting it would condone the abuse of police authority and undermine public confidence in the justice system.

The defendant, M.W., was charged with seven offences including assault, sexual assault, choking, forcible confinement, threatening, and breaching a court order against his common-law partner, K.L. The trial judge found K.L.'s testimony to be unreliable due to numerous material inconsistencies across her various statements and during trial.

The court also determined that an eight-second video clip, while appearing to show a sexual assault, was insufficient on its own to prove non-consensual interaction without reliable contextual evidence.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove any of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to M.W.'s acquittal on all counts.

This is an appeal from a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that overturned an acquittal in a sexual assault case and ordered a new trial.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant, finding reasonable doubt regarding consent and the alleged initial assault, partly due to an inconsistency in the complainant's evidence and the public nature of the alleged act.

The summary conviction appeal judge (SCAJ) allowed the Crown's appeal, concluding the trial judge engaged in "myth-based reasoning" and erred in finding consent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appellant's appeal, restoring the acquittal.

The Court found the SCAJ erred by substituting its own factual conclusions, mischaracterizing the trial judge's reasoning as "myth-based" and failing to distinguish between a finding of lack of consent and a finding of reasonable doubt about consent.

The Court also noted the SCAJ's failure to apply the material error test required for Crown appeals from acquittal.

The accused, J.A., brought an application under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking disclosure of source documents relied upon by an affiant for an Information to Obtain (ITO) a Feeney warrant for the arrest of a third party, R.S. The Crown opposed, arguing the materials were not "fruits of the investigation" related to J.A. and that J.A. lacked standing to challenge the warrant for R.S. The court denied the application, finding the investigative file unrelated to the case against J.A. and that J.A. had not established standing to challenge the third-party warrant.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

He argued the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for a breath demand because she mistakenly arrested him for 'over 80' instead of 'impaired driving', and that the trial judge erred in admitting the breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the officer had both subjective and objective grounds to make the breath demand based on the totality of the circumstances, and that the trial judge correctly admitted the evidence despite the minor s. 9 Charter breach.