3 total
Bail review dismissed; Justice of the Peace properly applied Gladue principles to Indigenous accused's circumstances.
The applicant, an Indigenous man charged with serious firearms and drug trafficking offences, sought a bail review on the sole ground that the Justice of the Peace failed to give due weight to Gladue considerations under s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code.
The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the application of Gladue principles at the bail stage, noting that while judicial notice must be taken of systemic factors, the accused should provide case-specific information bearing on release.
The court found the Justice of the Peace had properly considered the applicant's unique circumstances and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction to review.
Accused acquitted of sexual assault as his credible testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding consent.
The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident in a hot tub at a cottage.
The Crown alleged that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity, while the accused testified that the complainant affirmatively consented to both vaginal and attempted anal intercourse.
The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and found the accused's evidence to be straightforward and believable, raising a reasonable doubt.
Conversely, the court found material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and conflicts with other witnesses' testimonies.
The accused was found not guilty.
The court dismissed an appeal of a 15-year-old consensual NCRMD verdict, finding it was supported by medical evidence and procedurally fair.
The appellant, J.G., appealed a 15-year-old verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), seeking to substitute convictions for the original charges.
J.G. argued the NCRMD finding was unreasonable due to insufficient medical evidence and that the process was procedurally unfair.
The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including psychological and psychiatric assessments, noting the consensual nature of the original NCRMD verdict.
The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the NCRMD finding, particularly given the consensual nature of the proceedings and the medical opinion that J.G. lacked the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of his acts when agitated.
The court also found no procedural unfairness warranting a new trial, noting J.G.'s representation by counsel and the support of the Children's Aid Society.
The appeal was dismissed.
