D. Orazietti

The offender, an indigenous man with no prior criminal record, was convicted of sexual assault and unlawful confinement after attempting to force sexual contact with the victim in a change room.

The Crown sought a two-year less a day jail sentence, while the offender sought a six-month conditional sentence.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the violent nature of the assault and its emotional impact on the victim against the mitigating factors, including the offender's Gladue factors, lack of criminal record, and community support.

The court concluded that a conditional sentence would not adequately address the need for denunciation and general deterrence, sentencing the offender to six months in jail followed by three years of probation.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel causing death and operating a vessel with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg causing death, following a tragic boating accident where a water skier was struck and killed by the boat's propeller.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver of the boat at the time of the collision.

While the accused made statements shortly after the accident suggesting she was the driver, the court found these statements unreliable due to her hysterical state.

The only eyewitness who testified the accused was driving had significant inconsistencies in his evidence.

Applying the W.(D.) test, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the vessel, resulting in an acquittal on all charges.

During a trial for aggravated assault and assault arising from an altercation at a stag and doe party, the accused brought a Charter s. 7 application seeking a stay of proceedings.

They argued that the Crown's continued prosecution amounted to an abuse of process because the Crown's main witness was contradicted by other Crown witnesses.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Crown's decision to proceed did not amount to flagrant impropriety and that it is the role of the trier of fact to assess conflicting evidence.