Carrie-Anne Bellan

The defendant, Perry Meeker, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant knew or was reckless regarding the lack of consent.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove lack of consent, as the complainant's testimony regarding her lack of romantic interest and memory was inconsistent with her prior communications and actions.

The defendant's testimony, which indicated an honest and reasonable belief in consensual sexual activity, was found credible.

The court concluded that the complainant had the capacity to consent despite intoxication and that the defendant's belief in consent was reasonable given the circumstances.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended care with access for the child S.R.W.D. The self-represented parents opposed, arguing genuine issues required a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, emphasizing the child's need for permanency and the parents' failure to address long-standing concerns regarding substance use and parenting capacity despite extensive CASD support.

The child was placed in extended care with supervised access for the parents under specific conditions.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference following an encounter with his then-boyfriend.

The complainant alleged that the accused engaged in non-consensual sexual acts, while the accused maintained that all activity was consensual.

The court applied the W.D. framework to assess credibility, finding the complainant's evidence inconsistent, exaggerated, and contradicted by external evidence, including a post-incident selfie and testimony from a witness present in the apartment.

The court believed the accused's evidence, found that the complainant consented, and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The defendant was charged with possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine after police seized drugs and paraphernalia from her vehicle following a 911 call reporting her unconscious in her car.

The defendant challenged the warrantless search and seizure as violating section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the seizure lawful under both the plain view doctrine and as incident to arrest.

The court held that the officer was lawfully positioned, the contraband was immediately apparent as criminal evidence, and the discovery was legally inadvertent despite the officer's expectation that drugs might be present.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and fentanyl, and three counts of driving while disqualified.

The Crown sought 22 months less pre-trial custody credited at 1.5:1 and a lifetime driving prohibition.

The defence sought 17 months with 2:1 credit for pre-trial detention.

The court found that while most pre-trial detention conditions were not particularly harsh, the offender suffered two assaults resulting in bodily harm, warranting enhanced credit at 2:1 for 40 days.

The court sentenced the offender to 20 months on the driving offences (less 14 months pre-trial credit for 6 months remaining) with a 10-year driving prohibition, and 4 months consecutive on the drug offence followed by 2 years probation.

The accused was convicted of theft of a restricted handgun and unlicensed possession of a firearm.

The Crown sought an 18-month jail sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 6-7 months, citing personal circumstances and mitigating factors.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding that denunciation and deterrence were paramount and that the accused's criminal history, bail violations, and trafficking of the weapon to criminals warranted incarceration.

The court imposed 15 months jail for theft (plus 2 years probation and $1,100 restitution) and 8 months concurrent for unlicensed possession (plus 2 years concurrent probation, DNA order, and 10-year firearms prohibition).

A youth was charged with thirteen offences including sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against two younger brothers.

The accused was initially arraigned on counts of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.

During trial, both counsel discovered that section 150.1(3) of the Criminal Code exempted the accused from prosecution on those counts because he was aged twelve or thirteen at the time of the alleged offences and did not fall within the statutory exceptions.

The Crown entered a stay on those counts.

The accused was then arraigned on two counts of sexual assault and brought a motion to stay proceedings on the basis of abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Crown acted in good faith, no evidentiary findings had been made at the first trial, all witnesses remained available, and proceeding with the sexual assault counts did not undermine trial fairness or the integrity of the judicial process.