Charles Yih

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for the complainant to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) in a sexual assault and sexual interference trial.

The accused opposed, arguing the evidential threshold was not met.

The court considered factors under s. 486.2(3), including the complainant's heightened anxiety and emotional state, finding that her ability to provide a full and candid account would be adversely influenced by the accused's presence.

Despite the case being "marginal" and lacking medical evidence, the court granted the application, concluding that CCTV would facilitate the complainant's testimony.

The applicant, charged with sexual interference and sexual assault, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was calculated at 48 months.

The court deducted 19 months and 21 days of defence delay, primarily attributed to a late adjournment caused by defence counsel's failure to notice a potential s. 276 issue in the disclosure.

The resulting net delay of 28 months and 9 days fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

Furthermore, the court found that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a discrete exceptional event that justified the remaining delay.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault, one count of threatening, and one count of assault with a weapon.

The complainant and accused were in a relationship characterized by extensive electronic communications involving discussions of violent sexual fantasies and rape role-play.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence contained significant contradictions and inconsistencies, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity.

The court also found that the accused's evidence was consistent and corroborated by the electronic messaging between the parties.

The court noted the unusual factual circumstances, including the complainant's own confusion about her feelings at the time and her subsequent Instagram post stating "it was consensual but consequential."

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition contrary to section 95(2) of the Criminal Code.

Police executed a search warrant at his residence and discovered a loaded sawed-off shotgun with the hammer cocked in the firing position and no safety mechanism, along with additional shotgun shells.

The court rejected the defence submission for credit for time spent on bail, finding insufficient evidence of hardship or punitive conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of three years in custody, characterizing the conduct as a "true crime" under the framework established in R v. Nur, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

The accused pleaded guilty to two charges of breach of undertaking.

The central issue was the appropriate credit to be given for pre-trial custody.

The Crown argued for one-for-one credit under section 719(3) of the Criminal Code, while the defence argued for one-and-a-half-for-one credit under section 719(3.1).

The court found that because the Crown had not formally applied to cancel the accused's bail pursuant to section 524(8), the accused was not "detained in custody" within the meaning of section 719(3.1), and therefore was entitled to enhanced credit at the one-and-a-half-for-one rate.

The accused pleaded guilty to making available child pornography, two counts of surreptitiously observing and recording a person who could reasonably expect to be nude, accessing child pornography, and possessing child pornography.

The offences occurred between January 1, 2008 and December 2, 2011.

The accused had accumulated thousands of images and videos of child pornography, including images depicting prepubescent children engaged in sexual acts.

The accused also secretly recorded his thirteen-year-old nephew in a bedroom and bathroom.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought twelve to eighteen months.

The court imposed a twenty-three-month jail sentence followed by three years probation, with ancillary orders including SOIRA registration, DNA order, and a prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code.