Carla Agatiello

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and four counts of sexual assault against his former wife.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the complainant's testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence lacked credibility, noting her demeanour during cross-examination regarding a marriage fraud investigation she initiated against the accused in India.

The court concluded the complainant had an ulterior motive to force reconciliation and gave false evidence.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused applied for an adjournment of his sexual offence trial to await a pending Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions regarding the admissibility of complainant records and sexual history.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, citing the significant trial delay that would result and finding that proceeding under the current provisions would not cause irreparable harm or a miscarriage of justice even if the provisions were later struck down.

The applicant, charged with sexual offences, brought a motion challenging the constitutional validity of the Bill C-51 amendments to the Criminal Code regarding the production of personal records and the admissibility of sexual history evidence.

The applicant argued that the definition of 'record' was overbroad, that granting the complainant standing in the admissibility voir dire disrupted the trial balance, and that mandatory disclosure of the application to the complainant violated the right to a fair trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the provisions did not violate sections 7 or 11(d) of the Charter, relying on previous Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence upholding similar protections for complainants' privacy and dignity.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while prohibited.

He carried the loaded gun in his waistband while selling drugs and pulled it out during an altercation on a public street.

The Crown sought 7-8 years, while the defence sought 3.5 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's extensive criminal record and repeated breaches of court orders.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years, but granted 40 months of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and an additional 9 months for harsh conditions (triple bunking, frequent lockdowns, lack of fresh air), leaving 23 months to serve.