Carol A. Brewer

The defendant, Justine Watson, was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, DNA from a Presto card registered to the defendant found at the scene, and similarities in appearance and possessions.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable in parts but accepted the security video evidence.

The court admitted hearsay evidence regarding the Presto card's chain of custody due to necessity and threshold reliability.

Ultimately, the court found the cumulative circumstantial evidence compelling, excluding other reasonable alternatives, and entered a finding of guilt.

The defendant, Mathew Cook, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Jordan, calculating the total delay, subtracting defence delay, and accounting for exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and unforeseen need for additional trial time.

After deductions, the net delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence had not demonstrated meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown established that a proper demand was made with reasonable grounds, that the accused intentionally refused to comply, and that no reasonable excuse existed.

The defence argued that incomplete information provided by the officer regarding the consequences of refusal affected the validity of the demand, vitiated proof of mens rea, provided a reasonable excuse, constituted officially induced error, and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The court rejected all defence arguments and entered a conviction.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device on October 30, 2014.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to establish an essential element of the offence because there was no lawful demand for the sample, contending the investigating officer lacked the necessary reasonable suspicion.

The Crown submitted that sufficient factors existed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.

The court found that the officer had both subjective and objective grounds for the demand based on the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the driving, the odour of alcohol from the vehicle, and the defendant's glossy eyes.

A conviction was entered.

The accused, a 54-year-old caregiver at a group home operated by the Reena Foundation, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 28-year-old female resident with severe developmental and mental health disabilities.

The assault occurred in the resident's locked room during overnight hours when the accused was the sole staff member on duty.

The victim suffered significant psychological harm and behavioral regression following the incident.

The Crown sought 12-14 months incarceration plus 3 years probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 6-8 months.

The court imposed 13 months incarceration followed by 3 years probation, finding that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the gross breach of trust, the victim's exceptional vulnerability, and the devastating impact on the victim and her family.

The defendant was charged with two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of theft of marijuana.

The Crown alleged that the defendant aided and abetted an individual known as "Pimp" in robbing the complainant of marijuana during a drug transaction.

The key issue was credibility.

The court found the defendant guilty of theft but acquitted him on both assault with a weapon charges.

The court determined that while the defendant's conduct supported an inference of knowledge and intent regarding the theft, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of or intended the use of a weapon in the assault, and that the defendant's driving of the vehicle was motivated by escape rather than intent to apply force.

The applicant brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided for her trial on charges of fail to comply with a recognizance, criminal harassment, and assault with a weapon.

The Crown conceded that the applicant was indigent and ineligible for Legal Aid.

The court considered whether counsel was essential to a fair trial, examining the seriousness of charges, complexity of proceedings, and the applicant's ability to participate effectively.

The court found that while the applicant faced health challenges and limited education, she was intelligent and articulate, the case involved only credibility issues without legal complexity, and judicial assistance could adequately equip her for trial.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit following a multi-vehicle collision in Toronto.

The trial was blended with a Charter voir dire addressing numerous constitutional and procedural issues.

The court found that while the Crown proved the defendant was the driver of the vehicle involved, it failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, the court found breaches of the defendant's Charter rights regarding the right to counsel and the timing of breath sample demands.

The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to serious breaches of the right to counsel.

Both charges were dismissed and the defendant was acquitted.

The Crown sought to admit the initial hearsay statement of a highly vulnerable complainant with severe cognitive and developmental disabilities, who alleged sexual assault by the defendant while he was working as temporary staff at a group home.

The complainant was unable to testify due to the traumatic effects of a court visit, which caused significant behavioral regression.

The court admitted the statement under the principled hearsay exception, finding both necessity and threshold reliability were established.

The complainant's cognitive profile, emotional vulnerability, and the spontaneous nature of the initial statement to a trusted support worker provided adequate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

The defendant was convicted of two counts of possessing child pornography following a trial.

The court addressed the applicability of the Kienapple principle and imposed sentence.

The defendant, a 24-year-old security guard with no criminal record, had accumulated child pornography on his computer and external hard drive.

The material was discovered when a co-worker accessed the hard drive left at the workplace.

The court found that the Kienapple principle did not apply as the two offences had different factual and legal nexuses.

The court imposed a sentence of ten months incarceration on each count to be served concurrently, followed by three years probation, along with ancillary orders including a five-year prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code, DNA order, and sex offender registration for life.

The applicant brought a motion pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis of a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit on January 26, 2013.

The information was sworn on February 13, 2013, and the trial began on February 21, 2014, but was adjourned due to witness unavailability.

The trial resumed on November 28, 2014, resulting in a total delay of 653 days.

The court found that the applicant had established a breach of section 11(b) rights and granted the stay of proceedings.

The defendant was charged with criminal harassment of the building superintendent by watching or besetting at the apartment building between March 3 and March 5, 2013.

The charge arose from the defendant's repeated visits to the building following his eviction for non-payment of rent.

While the evidence established a pattern of disturbing conduct over several months, the court found that the Crown failed to prove the essential element of "watching or besetting" during the specific timeframe alleged in the charge.

The court dismissed the criminal harassment charge but imposed a peace bond given the defendant's persistent conduct and the reasonable fear experienced by the complainant and his wife.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography between April 6 and 7, 2010.

Police discovered 3,610 images and 191 movie clips of child pornography on the defendant's computer.

The Crown sought 9 months incarceration and 3 years probation, while the defence sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment and 1 year probation.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence with 1 year probation, finding that denunciation and general deterrence could be adequately addressed through this sentence.

The court considered the defendant's age, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, extensive counselling, low risk of reoffending, and significant caregiving responsibilities for his brother as mitigating factors.

The Crown applied for an assessment of the defendant's fitness to stand trial pursuant to section 672.11(a) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, a 26-year-old deaf and non-speaking individual from Nigeria who communicates only through family sign language and is illiterate, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference.

The defence opposed the application, arguing that deafness is not a mental disorder and that the defendant possessed rudimentary understanding of fitness concepts.

The court found reasonable grounds to doubt the defendant's fitness based on expert evidence establishing mental retardation as a mental disorder, despite the defendant's basic understanding of rules and punishment.

The court granted the Crown's application for a fitness assessment, distinguishing its conclusion from a prior ruling by Justice Schneider based on the different evidence presented.

The defendant pleaded guilty to eight counts of giving contradictory evidence in relation to his testimony at various court proceedings in a second-degree murder case involving the death of a two-and-a-half-year-old child.

The defendant's testimony evolved significantly across multiple hearings, from denying knowledge of the child's injuries to eventually admitting responsibility.

The court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment, emphasizing the serious nature of misleading evidence in homicide proceedings and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault of a co-worker on October 28, 2010.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual contact including kissing, breast contact, and masturbation.

The defendant claimed the complainant consented to all sexual activity.

The central legal issue was whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent was available and, if so, whether the Crown had refuted it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the defendant's conduct was troubling and his belief in a relationship was self-delusional, the complainant's physical actions—moving her arms aside and performing masturbation—created an air of reality to the defence.

The court concluded the defendant took reasonable steps to ascertain consent by seeking permission for each sexual act and accepting refusals.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit and breaching a probation order by driving without a valid license.

The charges arose from a RIDE spot check.

The court examined four key issues: whether police failed to wait 15 minutes for residual mouth alcohol to dissipate before using the approved screening device; whether the Intoxilyzer 8000C was an approved instrument; whether the defendant's blood alcohol level was over 80 at the time of the stop; and whether the Crown proved the probation breach beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the defendant guilty on both charges.

The defendant was charged with failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, arising from a parking lot incident where her vehicle struck and ran over a co-worker.

The court found the defendant guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene, but acquitted her of criminal negligence.

The decision turned on credibility findings, with the court rejecting the defendant's testimony as unreliable and finding that she deliberately failed to investigate the collision due to her vehicle being uninsured.