Charles O. Spettigue

The applicant, charged with aggravated assault, sought a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel, arguing his right to a fair trial would be compromised without representation.

His legal aid certificate was cancelled after he received an inheritance, which he subsequently spent.

The court found that legal representation was essential given the complexity of the case and the serious charge.

However, the application was deemed premature because the applicant failed to exhaust all legal aid appeals and did not provide sufficient evidence of indigence regarding family loans.

The application was adjourned to allow the applicant to complete the legal aid appeal process and provide further financial evidence.

A.H. was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the victim's age (16 at the time of the offence), the profound and devastating impact on the victim (depression, self-harm, fear of intimacy), the violent and serious nature of the assault involving multiple violations (kissing, touching, forced digital penetration, forced oral sex, forced vaginal intercourse), and the presence of another male during the assault.

Mitigating factors included A.H.'s youth (18 at the time of the offence), being a first-time adult offender, having a supportive family, a stable employment history, and a newfound willingness to seek therapy for past traumas.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years in custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it inappropriate for a violent sexual assault, and sentenced A.H. to 30 months' incarceration, moderately below the typical range for forced penetration due to his youth and first-offender status.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault and sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended documentary evidence (Uber records, Google timeline, text messages) and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the Uber and Google documents were inconsequential and did not constitute a misapprehension of evidence.

While the text messages did contradict the complainant's testimony regarding the exact time of the assault, the court found this error immaterial to the overall credibility of her narrative, especially given the strong credibility findings made by the trial judge.

The appeals from conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The accused, A.H., sought leave to re-open a pre-trial ruling by a case management judge (Kurz J.) that denied an. application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding evidence related to a "Spin The Vape" game.

The application for leave was based on three grounds: fresh evidence (an affidavit from A.H.), the release of a new Court of Appeal decision (R. v. Choudhary), and alleged misapprehension of evidence or submissions by the case management judge.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the affidavit did not constitute fresh evidence that could not have been adduced earlier, that R. v. Choudhary did not change the existing law, and that there was no misapprehension of evidence by the case management judge.

The Crown sought to file a letter written by the complainant as a numbered exhibit during trial.

The defence opposed this.

The court denied the Crown's request, citing a prior omnibus ruling by Justice Kurz that restricted evidence regarding certain sexual activity, and the general rule against admitting prior consistent statements as exhibits, especially when they contain information not disclosed in the witness's testimony.

The court found no unfairness to the Crown or complainant in not admitting the letter, as the complainant had an opportunity to address inconsistencies during cross-examination.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath sample analysis results and observations made by police officers, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The court found no arbitrary detention under section 9, no violation of the right to be informed of reasons for detention under section 10(a), and no unlawful search under section 8.

The court upheld the officer's reasonable and probable grounds for making the breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, including speeding, failure to pull over immediately, slurred speech, red glassy eyes, odour of alcohol, and the accused's unusual utterance.

The application was dismissed.