B. Sacevich

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and two counts of breach of probation after the victim was found with severe head injuries.

The Crown relied on surveillance videos and the accused's statement to police.

The court found the video evidence insufficient to prove the accused caused the severe injuries, as another unidentified individual was seen assaulting the victim.

However, the court found the accused guilty of a separate, lesser included offence of common assault captured on video, and consequently guilty of breaching his probation orders.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after a .22 calibre rifle was discharged four times in a hospital parking lot, striking the tires of three parked vehicles.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance tracking the accused's vehicle and expert forensic evidence matching the spent casings to a rifle found in the accused's possession upon arrest.

The court found the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter.

The accused was found guilty of careless use of a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, while the charge of discharging a firearm with recklessness was adjourned to address an error in the indictment.

The Indigenous offender was sentenced for a random robbery and assault with a weapon (stabbing) against two women in a drive-thru.

The court considered the offender's youth, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and significant Gladue factors, alongside his recent rehabilitative efforts and sobriety.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court rejected the Crown's proposed 30-36 month sentence and imposed the defence's proposed sentence of 2 years less a day, minus enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, followed by 2 years of probation.

The accused was charged with robbery, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats following an incident where two women were attacked in a vehicle.

The primary issue at trial was identity, with the defence arguing that an acquaintance of the accused committed the offences.

During a blended voir dire, the court admitted the accused's video statement to police and Facebook Messenger group chat excerpts as evidence.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, clothing descriptions, and the accused's admissions in the group chat, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the assailant.

The accused was found guilty of robbery and assault with a weapon, but acquitted of uttering threats.

The accused was charged with break and enter, sexual assault, and breach of probation following a night of heavy drinking and drug use with the complainant and others.

The complainant alleged she woke up partially undressed and believed the accused had assaulted her while she was passed out, though she admitted to severe memory loss.

The accused testified that they had consensual sexual intercourse.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to extreme intoxication, memory loss, and inconsistencies in her statements about being choked.

Furthermore, DNA from an unknown male was found on the complainant.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The plaintiff, acting personally and as assignee of his brother's corporation, sued the defendants for damages arising from a failed fast-food franchise investment.

The plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant, acting through his holding company, maliciously interfered with the plaintiff's business by inducing subtenants to breach their contracts, unreasonably withdrawing consent to subleases, and secretly terminating the head lease for the restaurant premises.

The court found the defendants liable for breach of contract and inducing breach of contract, piercing the corporate veil to hold the individual defendant personally liable due to his malicious and tortious conduct.

The plaintiff was awarded $144,228.69 in damages, including $100,000 in at-large damages for inducing breach of contract.