4 total
The court imposed custodial sentences on two caregivers for the severe physical abuse of a vulnerable child.
Sentencing decision following conviction of two accused for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against a young child with sickle cell anemia.
The accused inflicted repeated physical abuse including whipping with a belt, resulting in significant scarring.
The court imposed custodial sentences of 9 months for the mother and 5 months for the co-accused, finding that non-custodial sentences would be inadequate given the severity of abuse, the vulnerability of the victim, the positions of trust held by the accused, and the complete absence of remorse or insight demonstrated by either accused.
Young person acquitted of bank robbery due to unreliable fingerprint expert evidence and lack of party liability.
The young person was charged with armed robbery of a bank based on video surveillance and a palm print found on the exit door.
The Crown's case relied heavily on a fingerprint expert testifying for the first time, whose evidence was marred by late disclosure, documentary errors, and reliance on unfiled known prints.
The court rejected the expert's opinion as unreliable and denied the Crown's late application to call a verification officer.
Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the young person, who merely entered and left the bank with the actual robber, had the requisite knowledge or intent to be a party to the offence, nor was there reliable evidence a firearm was used.
The young person was acquitted.
Youth acquitted of bank robbery due to unreliable fingerprint evidence and mere presence at scene.
A youth was charged with robbery while using a firearm following a bank robbery on December 29, 2010.
The Crown's case rested primarily on fingerprint evidence found on the interior exit door of the bank and eyewitness testimony.
The accused was not the actual robber but the second youth who entered and exited the bank with the robber.
The court found serious deficiencies in the expert fingerprint evidence, including failure to provide a proper expert report, disclosure violations, documentary errors, and use of prints from a different arrest date without disclosure.
The court also found insufficient evidence of the use of a firearm and no evidence of the accused's knowledge or participation in the robbery beyond mere presence.
The accused was acquitted of all charges.
Accused acquitted of failing to appear as severe drug withdrawal raised reasonable doubt about mens rea.
The accused was charged with failing to appear in court.
He had been released on a recognizance requiring him to reside at a rehab centre.
Upon arrival, he learned they did not accept clients on methadone, forcing him to undergo severe withdrawal.
He testified that due to the physical pain of withdrawal, he forgot his court date and left the centre to obtain drugs.
The court found his evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding the requisite mens rea for the offence.
Additionally, the Information alleged a failure to appear on March 22, but the recognizance required appearance on March 21.
The court held this variance was material and could not be cured, as the date is an essential element of the actus reus.
The accused was acquitted.
