Donald William Johnson

M.L. was charged with sexual assault and common assault.

The sexual assault allegation stemmed from an incident in 2006, early in the cohabiting relationship with the complainant, D.W. The common assault charge arose from an incident in 2016 when M.L. attempted to serve D.W. with family court documents.

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis for the sexual assault charge, considering the complainant's credibility, delayed disclosure, and potential motives to fabricate.

The court found inconsistencies and omissions in D.W.'s testimony regarding the sexual assault and the circumstances of her leaving the home, and noted the Crown did not call a potentially dispositive witness.

For the common assault, the court accepted that M.L. tugged D.W.'s hood to place papers inside, constituting an assault.

M.L. was acquitted of sexual assault but convicted of common assault.

The accused, Lewis Lauzon, was charged with sexually assaulting and threatening to kill the complainant.

The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, who was an 18-year-old at the time of the alleged offences.

The defence highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant's memory and the implausibility of certain aspects of the account, while the Crown emphasized the complainant's core consistency, lack of motive to fabricate, and corroborating circumstantial evidence.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness despite some inconsistencies and memory frailties, concluding that the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 39.75 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that the majority of the delay was institutional, totaling 25 months, which was well beyond the acceptable guidelines under the previous Morin framework.

Despite the Crown's arguments regarding complexity and mitigation efforts, and the seriousness of the human smuggling charges, the court concluded that the transitional considerations could not justify the systemic delay.

The accused's constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time was denied.

Jarrett Sauve, charged with various weapons offences, challenged the admissibility of his utterances and videotaped statement to police.

The applications were based on alleged violations of his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter and involuntariness under the common law confessions rule.

The court conducted a voir dire and found that initial utterances to D/Cst.

McGillis were made when Sauve was not detained, thus no Charter breach.

Utterances to Cst.

St-Amand were deemed spontaneous, and no Charter breach was found.

For the videotaped statement, the court concluded that Sauve had waived his right to counsel and that the statement was voluntary, not induced by threats or oppression.

Consequently, all challenged statements were ruled admissible.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to trafficking in a Schedule I substance (Oxycontin) under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime under the Criminal Code.

Police executed search warrants at two residences and seized large quantities of oxycodone pills with an estimated value of approximately $35,000, along with cash proceeds.

The offender had no prior criminal record and pleaded guilty early, but the court found significant aggravating factors including the large quantity of a hard drug and trafficking motivated by financial gain rather than addiction.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in prescription opioid trafficking and rejected a conditional sentence.

A custodial sentence followed by probation was imposed.