Dean F. Embry

The accused, charged with sexual assault and administering a noxious substance, brought an application under s. 276(2) and s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to introduce photographs and WhatsApp messages depicting prior sexual activity with the complainant.

The accused sought to use this evidence to impeach the complainant's credibility, as she had testified at the preliminary inquiry that they were 'just friends'.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the evidence was relevant, its probative value was low due to ambiguity in the messages, and its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value.

The offender was convicted of assault, threatening, and use of an imitation firearm while threatening passengers on a streetcar.

The Crown sought 18 months' custody, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 1 year.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of prior record, mental health struggles, and background as a refugee from Rwanda.

The court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year in custody, less 8.5 months of pre-sentence credit, followed by 2 years of probation.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application under ss. 8 and 9.

The appellant contended the police lacked reasonable grounds to arrest him and demand breath samples after observing him driving the wrong way on a ramp and exhibiting signs of impairment.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded the officers had the necessary subjective and objective reasonable grounds.

The court further held that even if a Charter breach had occurred, the breathalyzer results would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused, charged with invitation to sexual touching, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated trial date was 34.7 months.

The court found that a significant portion of the delay was attributable to the Crown's failure to disclose relevant computer forensic evidence until shortly before the original trial date, necessitating an adjournment.

Finding that the delay exceeded the guidelines and caused actual prejudice to the accused, the court granted the application and stayed the proceedings.