Daniella Portolese

Oral Richards was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant (G.T.), a friend, and forensic experts, while Richards testified in his defence.

The case hinged on conflicting accounts and the reliability of G.T.'s memory, particularly regarding how she entered certain rooms and the consistency of her testimony with DNA evidence.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) to assess credibility and reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and contradictions with forensic DNA, leading to serious doubts about consent and the accused's knowledge of lack of consent.

The charge was dismissed.

This is a sentencing decision for Jesse King-Norris, who was charged with assault causing bodily harm during a Junior C hockey game, resulting in the victim sustaining a broken jaw.

The Crown sought a conditional jail sentence, while the defence argued for an absolute or conditional discharge, citing mitigating factors and the commonality of fighting in hockey.

The court acknowledged the unique context of hockey violence and the defendant's good character and remorse but denied a discharge due to the severity and foreseeability of the injury and the public interest in deterring serious on-ice assaults.

A suspended sentence with probation and community service was imposed.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and multiple firearms offences.

The offences involved shooting a man in the leg over a drug debt in a residential complex, and later being found in a vehicle with a loaded handgun and significant quantities of fentanyl and other drugs.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors, including the accused's lengthy criminal record for firearms offences, against mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas, difficult background, and exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns.

A global sentence of 7.5 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, forcible confinement, and uttering a forged document.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the first three charges and guilty to uttering a forged document.

Following a three-day trial in December 2019, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the assault and forcible confinement charges.

The court found the aggravating circumstances related to the uttering of a forged document were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation on the sexual assault charge, with a suspended sentence on the uttering forged document charge.

Dante Johnson, arrested for gun and drug offences, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

He asserted two material changes in circumstances: a new, suitable surety (his paternal grandmother) and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown conceded COVID-19 as a material change but opposed release.

The court conducted a de novo assessment, finding the new surety addressed the Justice of the Peace's concerns regarding supervision.

Despite the seriousness of the offences and strength of the Crown's case, the court determined that a reasonable person, informed of Charter values and the specific circumstances (accused's youth, first adult charges, strong release plan), would not lose confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted with strict conditions.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, forcible confinement, and uttering a forged document.

The accused pleaded guilty to uttering a forged document.

The Crown sought dismissal of the forcible confinement charge, which was granted.

The assault charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the date and causation of injury.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault based on evidence that he continued intercourse despite the complainant's repeated expressions of pain and withdrawal of consent.

The court found the accused's testimony internally inconsistent and unreliable, particularly when compared to text message evidence and the complainant's credible account.

The accused was tried for sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant alleged that the accused touched her breast over her shirt and then attempted to touch her breast under her shirt without consent while they were both employed at a Swiss Chalet restaurant.

The accused denied any physical contact.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence as evasive and internally inconsistent, and found the complainant's evidence compelling and credible.

The trial judge applied the W.D. test and found the Crown had proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A finding of guilt was entered.

The accused was charged with assault, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, mischief, and historical allegations of assault and threatening arising from an incident on December 21, 2017.

The complainant, the accused's daughter, gave a detailed videotaped statement to police describing the assault and confinement, but recanted at trial, claiming the allegations were fabricated.

The court found the complainant had committed perjury and assessed the comparative reliability of her two accounts.

Security camera footage corroborated key aspects of the police statement.

The court convicted on counts 1 and 2 (assault and unlawful confinement) based on the police statement corroborated by video evidence, but acquitted on counts 3, 4, and 5-7 due to insufficient corroboration or detail.

The applicant challenged his detention in police cells following the completion of breath tests in an impaired driving investigation.

The court found a breach of section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding arbitrary detention, specifically during the period after 5:00 a.m. when the final officer-in-charge failed to promptly assess the prisoner in accordance with police directives and the Criminal Code.

However, the court determined that the breath sample evidence was not obtained in a manner that infringed Charter rights, as the breach occurred several hours after the evidence was lawfully obtained.

The connection between the evidence and the breach was found to be too remote and tenuous.

The breath sample results were admitted into evidence.

The accused was charged with care or control while impaired by alcohol, over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, driving while licence suspended, and driving as a novice driver with more than zero blood alcohol content.

The trial addressed Charter violations regarding arrest grounds and right to counsel, the interpretation of truncated breath readings under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, and the sufficiency of evidence for each charge.

The court found no Charter violations, acquitted on the over 80 and impaired charges, acquitted on the driving while suspended charge due to lack of proof of notice, and convicted on the novice driver zero BAC charge.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample in response to a lawful approved screening device demand contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

Following a motor vehicle accident on January 17, 2017, the accused claimed he was unable to provide a breath sample due to debilitating sciatica pain.

The Crown argued the mens rea for the offence was mere knowledge or awareness of the prohibited act.

The court adopted the more demanding test from R. v. Stanley, requiring the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure was deliberate and intentional.

The court found credibility issues with the accused's testimony but determined that, considering all evidence, a reasonable doubt existed as to whether the failure was deliberate or due to inability caused by pain.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol concentration.

The Crown's case was straightforward with three police witnesses and breath sample evidence.

The defendant, self-represented and not an anglophone, raised a Charter application alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The trial judge found that although the defendant appeared to understand his rights and declined counsel, the police were aware of language difficulties but failed to ensure the defendant understood his rights in a meaningful and comprehensible manner.

The application was granted, finding a Charter violation.