David M. Humphrey

The accused, a neurologist practising in an urgent neurology clinic, faced 48 remaining counts of sexual assault arising from allegedly inappropriate medical examinations of female patients over a lengthy period.

After a very long trial, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the impugned touching was objectively sexual in nature, failed to prove that the accused used medical examinations as a fraudulent ruse to gain sexual access to patients' bodies, and failed to displace the reasonable alternative inference that the examinations were carried out for medical purposes.

The court admitted the Crown's expert neurology evidence and the cross-count similar fact evidence, but assigned the expert's opinion little or no weight on key issues because of scope problems, inconsistencies, anecdotal foundations, and situational bias, and found the similar fact evidence ultimately incapable of carrying the Crown's burden.

The court repeatedly found complainant evidence unreliable or tainted by media and CPSO publicity, accepted the accused's evidence that he proposed, explained, and performed the examinations in accordance with his training and standard methods, and concluded that the proven examinations were medical examinations to which the patients consented.

All 48 remaining counts resulted in acquittals.

The accused was charged with uttering threats, use of an imitation firearm, forcible confinement, and extortion relating to two separate complainants in the context of business disputes.

The first complainant alleged the accused threatened him with a gun during a dispute over a commercial lease and retained property.

The second complainant alleged the accused held him at gunpoint and forced him to sign a multi-million dollar consulting agreement related to a real estate transaction.

The court found the testimony of both complainants to be unreliable and contradicted by other witnesses, including the accused's son and lawyer, as well as documentary evidence.

The Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals on all counts.

The accused, a doctor, was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of uttering threats against a former patient and friend.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's evidence.

The defence argued the complainant had a motive to fabricate the allegations, pointing to evidence that she extorted the accused for money and threatened to report him if he stopped paying.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the alleged assaults, threats, and cash payments.

Concluding that the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The accused, a family physician, was charged with sexual assault with a weapon (a needle) in relation to a patient who attended his clinic complaining of a headache and sinus infection.

The complainant alleged that during the administration of a Demerol injection, the accused unnecessarily lowered her clothing, inappropriately touched her, engaged in grinding motions against the examination table, discussed her sexual experiences, and ejaculated.

The accused maintained that the procedure was entirely professional and appropriate.

The trial judge found that while the complainant honestly perceived she had been sexually assaulted, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching was objectively sexual in nature.

The trial judge identified numerous material inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses, including contradictions regarding the location of meetings, contents of a gift bag, the existence and content of recordings, and the presence of a diagram.

The trial judge also found credibility concerns with the accused's evidence.

Ultimately, the trial judge concluded that the Crown had not met its burden of proof and entered an acquittal.

This decision concerns the prosecution of five members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior Hockey Team for sexual assault.

The complainant, E.M., alleged that after consensual sexual activity with Michael McLeod, she was sexually assaulted by McLeod and his teammates in a London hotel room.

The accused maintained that E.M. was a willing and active participant.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability issues in the complainant’s evidence, including contradictions with video evidence and other witness testimony.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt for any of the accused and acquitted all five.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the law of consent, credibility, and the use of myths and stereotypes in sexual assault trials.

This decision addresses the Crown's application to admit a text message as hearsay evidence under the principled exception in a high-profile sexual assault prosecution.

The court reviews the necessity and reliability requirements for hearsay, ultimately finding that the reliability threshold is not met and dismissing the application.

The ruling provides a detailed application of the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Bradshaw and R. v. Charles on the dangers of hearsay and the use of corroborative evidence.

The Crown sought to admit a text message sent by Brett Howden to Taylor Raddysh as past recollection recorded, an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court reviewed the requirements for admissibility, including reliability, timeliness, absence of memory, and the witness’s ability to vouch for the accuracy of the record.

The court found that while the first three requirements were met, Mr. Howden could not vouch for the accuracy of the text message, as he had no memory of sending it and could not confirm its truthfulness.

As a result, the application to admit the text message as past recollection recorded was denied.

This decision addresses a defence motion for a mistrial after a jury note alleged unprofessional conduct by defence counsel, raising concerns about jury impartiality.

The court reviews the legal principles governing mistrials, including the presumption of jury impartiality, the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, and the discretion to discharge jurors or declare a mistrial.

The court finds that the fairness of the trial has been compromised and grants the motion for a mistrial, emphasizing that such a remedy is reserved for the clearest of cases where no other remedy will suffice.

Sentencing following conviction of a physician for sexually assaulting an adult patient during a medical appointment.

The court treated the breach of trust, the intrusive sexual conduct, and the significant impact on the complainant as aggravating, while giving substantial weight to the offender's lack of record, age, medical fragility, remorse, community support, collateral consequences, and low risk of reoffence.

Applying the requirement that aggravating facts be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the court declined to treat an alleged sexualized breast examination, premeditation, and deliberate note manipulation as aggravating.

A custodial sentence of 20 months less pre-sentence credit, followed by 18 months' probation and ancillary DNA, SOIRA, weapons, and surcharge orders, was imposed.

The appellant, a physician, appealed his conviction on three counts of sexual assault and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered grounds including the admission and use of cross-count similar act evidence, the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons, errors in credibility and reliability assessment, and the trial judge's treatment of prior consistent statements and motive to fabricate.

The Court found no errors in the trial judge's handling of similar act evidence, the sufficiency of reasons, or the credibility assessments.

It also found no error in the application of the totality principle in sentencing.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was also dismissed.

Jack Himel pleaded guilty to possession and making child pornography.

The Crown sought 18 months custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 12-15 months.

The court found that despite significant mitigating circumstances and low risk of re-offence, a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the severity of the offences, particularly the making of child pornography, and the Supreme Court's directives on sentencing for child sexual offences.

A sentence of 12 months custody followed by 12 months probation was imposed.

Dr. Wameed Ateyah was convicted of 16 counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation involving 13 female patients.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, the number of victims, the intrusive nature of the offences, and falsification of medical records.

Mitigating factors included lack of criminal antecedents, otherwise good character (though attenuated due to breach of trust), collateral consequences (loss of medical license), and physical/mental health issues.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the Defence sought 3 years.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and public protection as dominant sentencing objectives.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global sentence of nine years in jail, with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a final sentence of eight years and 357 days.

The defendant, a doctor, was charged with 24 counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference involving fifteen female patients.

The Crown alleged that the defendant intentionally touched patients' breasts and/or genitals for sexual purposes under the guise of medically unnecessary examinations, capitalizing on his position of trust.

The defense argued that some events did not occur or were medically appropriate, and alleged collusion among complainants.

The court granted the Crown's similar fact evidence application, finding a distinctive pattern of behavior and false record-keeping.

The court found the defendant's testimony lacked credibility and reliability.

Ultimately, the defendant was found guilty of 16 counts of sexual assault and 1 count of sexual interference, and acquitted on other counts due to insufficient evidence or Crown's request.

The complainant (J.N.) alleged sexual assault by her former family doctor, Romeo Tan, during a physical exam in May 2014.

J.N. had no memory of the incident for three and a half years until she read a newspaper article.

The defence argued the assault did not occur and highlighted inconsistencies in J.N.'s memory and the implausibility of the events.

The court found J.N. to be a sincere and credible witness but was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that her recovered memory was reliable, given her general poor memory, suggestibility, the delay in recollection, and the lack of independent corroboration.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused physician was charged with one count of sexual assault against a patient.

The complainant alleged the accused inserted his hand into her vagina without consent following a medical examination.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, including inconsistent statements about how she obtained newspaper articles about the accused, a refusal to answer questions during cross-examination, and the unavailability of her personal notes.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court concluded the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The two accused were jointly charged with importing cocaine after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Trinidad and Tobago with over 4.9 kilograms of cocaine concealed in their luggage.

Both accused testified that they believed they were smuggling money, jewellery, or documents for a friend, and had been repeatedly assured that no drugs were involved.

The court found that while the accused's evidence was troubling and not entirely believable, it raised a reasonable doubt as to their actual knowledge.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove wilful blindness, as the accused had made some inquiries that lowered their suspicions, and the court was not convinced they deliberately refrained from further inquiries to remain ignorant.

Both accused were acquitted.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against his daughter, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing to review the complainant's personal journals, failing to consider her motive to lie, and assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary decision that reviewing the highly private journals was not necessary in the interests of justice, given the availability of other evidence to support the appellant's motive theory.

The Court also found the trial judge properly considered the motive theory and made reasonable credibility findings supported by the evidence.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Viraphone Savina Ackharath and Alea Sabira Baksh, who are charged with importing and conspiracy to import a controlled substance.

Ackharath challenged the admissibility of her statements, arguing a violation of her s. 9 Charter rights due to an arbitrary arrest without reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the Border Services Officer had objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, considering factors such as the accused being a travelling companion of someone arrested for smuggling, their origin from a known source country for controlled substances, and being flagged for secondary inspection.

Consequently, no s. 9 Charter breach was found.

Furthermore, the court determined that even if a breach had occurred, the admission of the statements would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter, given the non-serious nature of any potential breach and the minimal impact on the accused's rights, particularly as she was immediately advised of and given access to counsel.

The Crown's application for the admissibility of all statements was granted.

The appellant was convicted of assault against his wife, A.B., based on her testimony corroborated by date-stamped photographs, despite the trial judge having reasonable doubt on related firearm charges due to credibility concerns with the complainant and another witness.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, claiming an illogical result from incompatible findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons could have been clearer in explaining the differing credibility findings across distinct charges, it was permissible for the judge to accept parts of a witness's testimony when supported by other evidence.

The court affirmed that the verdict was not unreasonable under the Beaudry/Sinclair test, as the findings were distinct and supported by the evidence.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant, a surgeon, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a hospital housekeeper.

He argued the trial judge made several errors in assessing credibility, including improperly considering race in finding a power imbalance, misapprehending evidence, and making a Browne and Dunn error.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly based the power imbalance on the parties' respective roles in the hospital and made no reversible errors in his credibility assessments or application of the law.