Cara Sweeny

The applicant, who had been found guilty of robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault, applied to re-open his trial and declare a mistrial.

The application was based on the Crown's late disclosure of an occurrence report detailing withdrawn drug charges from 2003 against a witness.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, as adapted in Kowall for re-opening a defence case.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence could have obtained the report with due diligence, the evidence was not relevant to a decisive issue, and it would not have affected the trial's outcome.

The offender, an Aboriginal man with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and a lengthy criminal record, was sentenced for sexually assaulting an intoxicated and unconscious victim and breaching his probation.

The court weighed the profound violation of the victim's sexual integrity and the offender's breach of trust against his severe childhood trauma and intergenerational trauma.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years in prison, reduced to ten months after crediting 14 months for pre-sentence custody, with no further probation ordered.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and administering a stupefying drug following a night of drinking with a co-worker who later reported memory loss and suspected she had been drugged before sexual intercourse occurred.

The complainant testified she had almost no recollection of events after drinking at a restaurant and believed she would not have consented absent intoxication or drugging.

The defence relied on detailed testimony, corroborative restaurant records, and text messages sent by the complainant the next morning expressing that she had a good time and attributing her condition to alcohol.

Expert toxicology evidence could not confirm or exclude the presence of a drug and indicated the symptoms could also be consistent with alcohol-induced memory impairment.

The court found significant concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the complainant’s recollection and concluded the Crown had not proven lack of consent or drugging beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing decision for multiple firearm, drug trafficking, and breach of prohibition order offences.

The accused was arrested while carrying a fully loaded restricted handgun and possessing crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking while subject to firearms prohibition orders and probation.

The court applied the Kienapple rule to stay certain duplicative convictions and considered aggravating factors including the loaded firearm, connection to drug trafficking, flight from police, and breach of prior court orders.

After granting enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, the court imposed a global sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

The remaining custodial term was structured as a reformatory sentence followed by a three-year probation order with multiple ancillary orders.

The defendant was charged with voyeurism under s. 162(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and mischief under s. 430(1)(c) for photographing nude women at Hanlan's Point, a public clothing-optional beach in Toronto.

The Crown alleged the defendant surreptitiously recorded nude persons in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.

The court found that the defendant's conduct was not surreptitious as it occurred openly on a public beach, and that nude beachgoers at a public clothing-optional beach do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against being photographed.

The court also found the defendant did not commit mischief as his conduct did not objectively interfere with the lawful enjoyment of the beach property, and he lacked the requisite mens rea.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling.

After being found guilty at trial, the defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.

The trial lasted approximately 20 months from charge to judgment.

The court conducted a detailed attribution analysis of the delay periods and concluded that only 7.5 months of delay was attributable to the Crown or systemic factors, which fell below the Askov/Morin guidelines of 8-10 months.

The court found that the defendant suffered only modest prejudice and that society's interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the delay concerns.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and unlawfully in a dwelling.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of non-insane automatism in the form of parasomnia (sexomnia), claiming he was asleep during the alleged assault.

The trial judge rejected the automatism defence, finding the defendant had not established a proper evidentiary foundation on a balance of probabilities.

The judge found the defendant's account of events was inconsistent and unreliable, and that his actions demonstrated conscious, purposeful decision-making inconsistent with parasomnia.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault but acquitted of the unlawfully in a dwelling charge due to reasonable doubt regarding specific intent.

The accused pleaded guilty to six counts of robbery and six counts of using an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence.

The robberies occurred between December 2011 and January 2012 at various financial institutions in Toronto.

The accused displayed an imitation firearm during each robbery and made demands for money, obtaining approximately $34,000 in total with no recovery.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight years less pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in an additional five years, eight months and 19 days of imprisonment.

The sentence balanced principles of denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, taking into account the accused's remorse, medical evidence of improvement, and potential for rehabilitation.

The Crown sought certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry decision discharging the accused on a charge of sexual exploitation while committing him to trial on related sexual offences.

The reviewing court considered whether the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence when assessing whether a relationship of trust or authority existed between the accused and the complainant.

The court found the judge overlooked evidence supporting an inference that the accused occupied a position of trust, including parental permission for overnight visits and the accused’s own statements assuming a “big brother” role.

The failure to consider this evidence constituted jurisdictional error.

The discharge was quashed and the accused was ordered committed to stand trial on the sexual exploitation charge.

The defendant was charged with refusal to comply with an approved roadside screening device (ASD) demand under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the defendant refused to provide a suitable breath sample after being lawfully demanded to do so.

The defence challenged both the validity of the demand and the Crown's proof of the requisite mens rea (intentional non-compliance).

The court found the ASD demand was lawful and valid based on reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol consumption.

However, the court acquitted the defendant on the basis that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's failure to produce a suitable sample was intentional, as opposed to a genuine inability to comply despite sincere efforts.