D. Ida

The accused, R.V., was charged with multiple counts including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, assault, attempting to choke, and uttering threats against the complainant, N.C., stemming from two alleged incidents.

The defense argued consensual sexual activity and denied other allegations.

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis to assess conflicting evidence.

While the accused's evidence was found not credible due to dishonesty and untruthfulness about the relationship, the complainant's credibility was also significantly undermined by untruthful testimony regarding the existence and disappearance of key voicemail and social media messages.

Despite the Crown's arguments for corroborating evidence, the court found the complainant's untruthfulness on material issues created a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused on all counts.

The offender, Ramez Cheema, pleaded guilty to possessing two prohibited sawed-off shotguns with readily accessible ammunition.

The firearms were found in his bedroom within his parents' home, exposing younger siblings to risk.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the dangerous nature and unsafe storage of the firearms, and mitigating factors including the offender's youth, first offender status, late guilty plea, employment, and family support.

The Crown sought 24 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence due to the serious nature of the offence and rising gun crime.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months less one day in a provincial reformatory, with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

Mary Thompson, charged with fraud over $5,000, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to a violation of her s. 11(b) right to trial within a reasonable time.

Applying the R. v. Jordan framework, the court calculated the total delay from the information being sworn (May 30, 2019) to the anticipated end of trial (June 24, 2022) as 36.85 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior courts.

After deducting 61 days for defence waiver and delay, and 134 days for COVID-19 related exceptional circumstances, the remaining delay was 30.44 months, still above the ceiling.

The Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness, and the court found no exceptional circumstances related to the case's complexity to justify the delay.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The applicant, Mary Thompson, sought a stay of proceedings for fraud over $5,000, alleging Charter violations (ss. 7 and 11(d)) due to the Crown's failure to obtain and disclose "handwritten calculated forms" essential for her defence.

The Crown argued the documents were never in their possession and were missing before the investigation began.

The court found no s. 7 breach by the Crown or police regarding the missing forms, as they were likely lost before the investigation began and were never in the Crown's possession.

The court deferred the application for a stay to the trial judge, emphasizing that such decisions are usually made at the end of the trial to better assess prejudice.

The court also rejected the applicant's submission that the Crown's decision to proceed without an independent forensic audit constituted an abuse of process.

The defendant brought a Garofoli application to quash a search warrant for firearms, alleging deficiencies in the Information to Obtain (ITO) and lack of reasonable grounds.

The Crown cross-applied to rely on redacted confidential informant (CI) information under the Garofoli step six procedure.

The court reviewed the ITO, including the judicially summarized redacted material, and found sufficient grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The application was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

The defendant was charged with exceed 80 (driving with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood) on December 17, 2017.

The defence raised Charter arguments alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), and challenged the constitutional validity of the presumption of identity in transitional cases when paired with the new presumption of accuracy.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and the constitutional challenge, finding no violations of the defendant's rights and that the presumptions of identity and accuracy operate on parallel tracks without conflict in transitional cases.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault following a trial.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence with 18 months probation, a SOIRA order, a DNA order, and a section 110 weapons prohibition.

The defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, including conditions requiring the accused to stay away from the victim, attend counselling, and comply with SOIRA for 10 years.

The court rejected both the Crown's custodial sentence and the defence's discharge request, finding that while incarceration was not warranted, a discharge would be contrary to the public interest due to the need for general deterrence in workplace sexual assault cases.

The Crown brought an application to halt a preliminary inquiry in light of recent amendments to the Criminal Code that came into effect on September 19, 2019, which restricted preliminary inquiries to offences punishable by 14 years' imprisonment or more.

The Crown argued the amendments were retrospective in effect and applied to all preliminary hearings scheduled after September 19, 2019.

The respondent argued the amendments were prospective and only applied to matters where no prior election had been made.

The court found that the determination of whether legislation is prospective or retrospective is a matter of law and that it was bound by the decision in R v. R.S., which held the amendments were retrospective.

The court accordingly found it had no jurisdiction to hold the preliminary hearing and directed the respondent to make a new election under the amended legislation.