C. M. Bondy

The Crown brought an application under section 276(1) of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of the complainant's homosexual orientation and prior sexual history.

The Crown argued this evidence would show the complainant was less likely to have consented to sexual activity with the accused and more worthy of belief.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed use of the evidence relied on stereotypical notions and constituted impermissible propensity reasoning, which section 276 seeks to exclude regardless of whether the Crown or defence seeks to introduce it.

The accused pled guilty to possession of Dilaudid for the purpose of trafficking after being caught with 1,700 pills valued at $34,000.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought two to three years.

The court considered the accused's lengthy criminal record for crimes of greed, his age, and his health issues.

Emphasizing denunciation and specific deterrence, the court sentenced the accused to 3.5 years in a federal penitentiary, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder and arson after pouring gasoline in a bedroom where his former partner and her seven-year-old daughter were sleeping, and setting it on fire.

The accused claimed the complainant started the fire herself after he announced he was leaving her for a former girlfriend.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as lacking credibility and defying common sense, applying the W.(D.) framework.

Relying on the complainant's evidence, expert fire investigation, and medical evidence, the court found the accused deliberately set the fire with the specific intent to kill the occupants.

The accused was found guilty on all eight counts.