Dana Peterson

The defendant, Preston Proulx, was accused of sexual assault, forcible confinement, threatening death, and assault against his former girlfriend.

The central issue was credibility, as the complainant and defendant presented vastly different accounts of the events.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, supported by photographic evidence and the defendant's emails containing admissions and demonstrating a tendency to anger and dishonesty.

The defendant was found guilty of all four charges.

The accused, D.G., was charged with two counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against the complainant, C.C., arising from a volatile common-law relationship.

The court heard evidence regarding verbal and physical altercations.

The accused admitted to restraining the complainant on two occasions, claiming self-defense.

Applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) for credibility and s. 34 of the Criminal Code for self-defense, the court found that the accused's actions of restraint for the first assault count (July 2016) were reasonable and proportionate in self-defense, leading to an acquittal.

For the second assault count (March 14, 2017), while an act of simple assault was established, the court again found the self-defense argument had an "air of reality" and the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in lawful self-defense.

Regarding the alleged punch to the head on March 14, 2017, and the sexual assault count, the court found serious credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, noting inconsistencies in her statements to police and lack of medical attention for the alleged head injury.

Consequently, the court was left with reasonable doubt on these counts.

All charges were dismissed, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused, Jesse Lee Bernier (22) and Ty Roger Oliver-Morin (20), pleaded guilty to invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault of a 15-year-old female complainant.

The victim was highly intoxicated at a party, and the offences involved forced fellatio and unprotected vaginal intercourse.

The Crown sought three years imprisonment, while the defence sought two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's age and vulnerability, the multiple assailants, and the severe psychological impact on the victim (PTSD, suicidal ideation).

Mitigating factors included the offenders' lack of prior criminal records, their young age, expressions of remorse, early guilty pleas, and time spent under stringent bail conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also the principle of restraint for young first offenders and the objective of rehabilitation.

Nicholas Goodchild was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual assault for having sexual intercourse with three complainants without disclosing his HIV-positive status.

Although condoms were used, he was not on antiretroviral medication, and his viral counts were not low, creating a realistic possibility of transmission.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the vitiation of consent, violation of trust, and the devastating impact on victims, particularly one who was medically vulnerable.

Mitigating factors included his youth (28), first-offender status, positive pre-sentence report, and genuine remorse.

The court also considered the Federal Government's policy on HIV non-disclosure, which suggests lower blameworthiness for condom use.

Applying principles of denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed consecutive sentences of 18 months, 12 months, and 12 months, for a total of 42 months (3.5 years) incarceration, along with ancillary orders.

Nicholas Goodchild, previously convicted of aggravated sexual assault for non-disclosure of HIV status, applied to reopen his conviction before sentencing to introduce fresh expert evidence.

The proposed evidence from Dr. John Richard Middleton Smith concerned the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, aiming to challenge the trial's finding of a realistic possibility of transmission.

The court applied the fresh evidence test from R. v. Palmer, as amplified by R. v. Reeve, which requires the evidence to be sufficiently cogent to reasonably affect the verdict.

The court found that Dr. Smith's evidence was not substantially new or different from the expert testimony already presented at trial by Dr. Wendy Lee Wobeser, particularly regarding the distinction between population-level effectiveness and individual efficacy of condom use.

Consequently, the court determined the proposed evidence did not meet the high cogency threshold required to reopen the conviction, and the application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to three sexual partners.

The accused argued that his use of condoms during sexual intercourse negated the realistic possibility of HIV transmission, despite not having a low viral load at the time.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada's test in Mabior, holding that both a low viral load and condom use are required to negate a realistic possibility of transmission.

As the accused did not have a low viral load at the time of the offences, the court found him guilty on all three counts.

The accused, Nicholas Goodchild, brought an application to sever Count 1 (aggravated sexual assault involving complainant Lindsay Glass) from the indictment, which also included three other counts of aggravated sexual assault.

The court considered factors from R. v. Last, including prejudice to the accused, factual and legal nexus, complexity of evidence, similar fact evidence, multiplicity of proceedings, inconsistent verdicts, length of trial, right to be tried within a reasonable time, and the accused's intention to testify.

Despite some factors favouring a joint trial (e.g., multiplicity of proceedings), the court found that the unique facts and potential legal defence related to Count 1, coupled with the accused's intention to testify only on that count and his waiver of his s. 11(b) rights, cumulatively favoured severance.

The application to sever Count 1 was granted.

The applicant sought to sever count 1 (aggravated sexual assault) from an indictment containing four counts, arguing that the interests of justice required it.

The Crown opposed the severance.

The court, applying the factors from R. v. Last, balanced the risk of prejudice to the accused against the public interest in a single trial.

Given the applicant's waiver of his Section 11(b) rights regarding delay, the court found that the applicant met the onus to establish that severance was in the interests of justice.

The accused, Daved James Nadon, pleaded guilty to eight counts, including two counts of pointing a firearm, uttering a threat to cause death, forcible confinement, possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, attempted murder with a firearm, breach of probation, and possessing a firearm contrary to prohibition.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the use of a prohibited firearm, threats, and the permanent debilitating injuries suffered by the victim, as well as mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, youth, and participation in rehabilitation programs.

The Crown sought a sentence of nine to twelve years, while the defence proposed seven to eleven years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years and 7 months imprisonment after accounting for 2 years and 5 months of pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders for a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA sampling, and a non-communication order.

The Provincial Director suspended the young person's conditional supervision after he breached his curfew condition by staying out three and a half hours late on the day after his release from custody.

The case was referred to the Youth Justice Court for review.

The court found that the breach was not serious and did not increase the risk to public safety, noting the young person's difficult family circumstances and his voluntary return and reporting.

The court cancelled the suspension and ordered the young person to serve the balance of his sentence in the community.