3 total
A youth accused of a fatal stabbing during a group altercation was acquitted based on self-defence.
A 17-year-old defendant was charged with second-degree murder in the death of an 18-year-old who was fatally stabbed during a group altercation outside a nightclub.
The Crown conceded that the evidence did not support a murder charge and sought a conviction for manslaughter.
The defendant claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.
The court found that while the defendant participated in escalating the initial conflict and used weapons when others did not, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were unreasonable in the circumstances.
The court considered the group dynamic, the speed of events, and the defendant's age in applying a modified objective standard of reasonableness.
The defendant was acquitted of both murder and manslaughter.
Impaired driving charges were stayed because the 674-day net delay exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling.
The defendant, Mohamed Osman, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.
The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of trial was 822 days (27 months and 12 days).
The court calculated the net delay by deducting defence delay (77 days) and delay attributable to a discrete event (70 days for prosecutor's family death, where mitigation was insufficient).
The net delay was found to be 674 days, exceeding the 18-month (548 days) Jordan presumptive ceiling by 126 days.
The Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.
The charges were stayed.
The accused was acquitted of sexual assault due to reasonable doubt regarding lack of consent.
The defendant, Duncan Morrison, was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code, stemming from an allegation that he removed a condom during consensual sexual intercourse without the complainant's knowledge or consent.
The central issue was whether the complainant consented to sexual activity without a condom.
The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.
While the complainant testified she insisted on condom use and saw the defendant put one on, her recollection of other significant details of the evening was found to be unreliable.
The defendant denied using a condom at all, stating he did not bring one.
Despite some issues with the defendant's explanations for his post-incident apologies, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity as it occurred.
