Calvin Rosemond

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement arising from an October 2022 incident.

The Crown's case relied on video evidence and testimony from a co-accused who had pleaded guilty.

During trial, the Crown's key witness expressed repeated safety concerns and refused to answer questions about who recorded the videos, citing fears for his and his family's safety.

The accused brought a mistrial application, arguing that the jury would speculate that the accused or someone connected to him was the source of the witness's fears, and that the jury would infer the accused was the videographer based on the witness's reluctance to answer.

The trial judge dismissed the mistrial application, finding that a mid-trial instruction and final jury charge adequately remedied any prejudice.

The jury subsequently convicted the accused of assault with a weapon and acquitted on unlawful confinement.

The accused brought a motion for a change of venue for a jury trial on impaired driving charges, arguing that significant pre-trial publicity and community hostility in the Niagara/Welland area would prevent a fair trial.

The court applied the two-part test, requiring the defence to prove a reasonable likelihood of partiality or prejudice that cannot be overcome by judicial safeguards.

The court found that while there was some media coverage and a petition, the evidence did not establish widespread hostility or prejudice in the large community that could not be mitigated by jury screening and other trial protections.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Husani Alexander, was charged with three counts of assault against his former partner, Tashina Yorke: assault causing bodily harm on December 22, 2019, assault causing bodily harm on March 10, 2016, and assault on August 24, 2016.

The central issue was credibility.

The court found both the complainant and the defendant to be credible witnesses, albeit with reservations for the complainant.

Regarding the December 2019 incident, the court found the headbutt was accidental, leading to dismissal of that charge.

For the March and August 2016 incidents, the court found both versions of events equally plausible and could not conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, all three charges were dismissed.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, brought a Charter application alleging unlawful detention, unreasonable search, and excessive force by police, seeking exclusion of evidence (a firearm) or a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for investigative detention to prevent interference with a search warrant execution.

It was determined that no search occurred as the firearm fell from the applicant during a lawful struggle to gain control.

The court also found that rights to counsel were provided as soon as reasonable, and the force used (a "football tackle" and subsequent strikes) was objectively reasonable given the immediate danger posed by an unsecured firearm and the applicant's resistance.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order based on a material change in circumstances after resolving subsequent charges incurred while on bail.

Although the court agreed the resolution of the subsequent charges constituted a material change, it dismissed the application.

The court found that the applicant's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, and the overwhelming strength of the Crown's case demonstrated a substantial likelihood that he would reoffend, making his continued detention necessary on the secondary ground.

The accused brought an application for review of his detention order on secondary ground concerns while on trial for human trafficking, living off the avails, cruelty to animals, criminal harassment, and failure to comply with probation.

The accused had been in custody since June 12, 2019.

The trial judge considered whether there had been a substantial change in circumstances material to the detention order.

Despite material changes including the weakness of the Crown's case, the unpredictability of the complainant, an offer of house arrest with electronic monitoring, and COVID-19 risks, the court found the accused had not met the Prete test and had not satisfied his onus that he would comply with terms of release.

The application for release was denied.

The accused brought a Code section 523(2) review of his detention order on charges including criminal harassment, procuring, trafficking in persons, threatening bodily harm, wounding an animal, and failing to comply with probation.

The Crown sought to file an affidavit prepared for a bail review in Superior Court in which the accused falsely deposed that he was housed with one or two inmates during a 13-day period, when detention centre records showed he was the sole occupant of his cell.

The court exercised its discretion to permit the Crown to file the affidavit as evidence of the accused's intent to mislead the court, but restricted cross-examination to the specific false statement regarding cell occupancy.

Kimo David was convicted by a jury of five firearm-related offenses and subsequently found guilty of five additional firearm and breach of order offenses.

The court considered aggravating factors including his extensive criminal record, prior firearm convictions, the public nature of the offense, and his post-arrest conduct.

Mitigating factors were limited to his relative youth.

The court rejected the "jump principle" given his limited prospects for rehabilitation.

Sentences for the main firearm offenses were concurrent, while breaches of separate prohibition orders were consecutive.

A global sentence of 8 years was imposed, with credit for presentence custody.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown charged two defendants with human trafficking, obtaining material benefits from trafficking and sexual services of minors, procuring minors for sexual services, and permitting unlawful sexual activity by minors on premises they controlled.

The defendants' girlfriends, who were 16 and 17 years old at the time, initially provided detailed statements to police implicating the defendants but recanted at the preliminary hearing.

The central issue was whether the prior statements were admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the statements met the threshold reliability test based on procedural safeguards (video recording, formal setting) and substantive reliability (consistency between statements and corroboration by external evidence).

The court committed both defendants to trial on most counts, finding sufficient evidence that they exercised control over the young women for the purpose of exploitation.