Christine McGoey

The accused was charged with sexual assault, robbery, and uttering threats arising from a violent attack at a Toronto bus stop.

The complainant identified the accused in court and the Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including DNA on a hat found at the scene and the accused’s presence near the location that night.

The court found significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s descriptions of the attacker and the accused’s actual appearance, including eye colour, hair colour and length, and a missing front tooth.

The court also attached very little weight to the in‑court identification because no photo line-up including the accused had ever been conducted and the identification occurred years later.

Considering the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence and applying the principles from R. v. W. (D.), the court concluded that the Crown had not proven identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of theft under $5,000 and criminal harassment.

The offences involved the theft of personal items (diaries, address book, cellphone) and a subsequent orchestrated campaign of harassment including distribution of intimate images and creation of a fake dating profile to cause fear and control the victim.

The court imposed a blended sentence of 90 days intermittent imprisonment concurrent with a 6-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, followed by 3 years probation.

The sentencing balanced deterrence and denunciation with rehabilitation, considering the accused's family responsibilities and lack of prior record.

The accused was charged with assault, theft, and criminal harassment arising from a relationship breakdown.

The complainant alleged the accused grabbed her neck, splashed water in her eyes, and stole her cellphone, diaries, and address book on January 7, 2010.

Subsequently, the accused allegedly distributed non-consensual intimate images and created a fake dating profile in the complainant's name to 20-30 of her relatives, friends, and church associates between February 16 and March 6, 2010.

The court found the accused guilty of theft and criminal harassment but acquitted him of assault due to reasonable doubt regarding the police report noting no assaults.