Dragi Zekavica

The accused was convicted by a jury of sexual assault arising from non‑consensual intercourse following an initial period of consensual sexual activity.

The court assessed aggravating factors including anal intercourse, the accused continuing despite the complainant’s repeated objections, and significant psychological harm to the complainant.

Mitigating considerations included the absence of gratuitous violence and the offender’s personal circumstances.

The court held that the appropriate sentencing range for sexual assault involving intercourse without additional violence is generally two to four years’ imprisonment.

A custodial sentence of three years was imposed together with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, sex offender registration, and a no‑contact order.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault, the accused applied for a mistrial based on alleged inconsistencies between the complainant’s trial testimony and her victim impact statement, arguing the differences supported an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court first considered whether it had jurisdiction to declare a mistrial after a jury verdict and the discharge of the jury.

Relying on appellate authority, the court held that a trial judge is generally functus after a jury verdict and may only intervene in very narrow circumstances, such as where the jury did not deliver the verdict it intended or where the defence of entrapment arises.

Neither exception applied.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to declare a mistrial and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a police search of her apartment.

She argued the search violated s. 8 of the Charter because the search warrants failed to properly describe the premises and were issued without reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found the warrants were invalid due to an inadequate and misleading description of the targeted premises in a multi‑unit mixed residential and commercial building.

Police continued searching after realizing they had entered the wrong unit and remained in the residence while obtaining a second warrant, conduct the court characterized as reckless and later approaching flagrant disregard of Charter rights.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis from Grant, the court held that the seriousness of the Charter breaches and the profound intrusion into the accused’s home outweighed society’s interest in adjudication on the merits.

The seized drugs were excluded from evidence.

The appellant appealed a conviction for failing or refusing to provide a suitable breath sample contrary to s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing contradictions in the evidence regarding alcohol consumption, improperly accepted the officer’s testimony that he refused to provide a breath sample, failed to consider the mens rea element, and imposed a harsh sentence.

The appeal court held that the trial judge was entitled to prefer the officer’s evidence and that credibility findings are owed deference on appeal unless unsupported by the evidence.

The court found the trial judge had an evidential basis to conclude the appellant intentionally failed or refused to provide a proper sample despite multiple opportunities.

The $1,500 fine was slightly above the statutory minimum and not demonstrably unfit.

Extradition hearing concerning a request from the Federal Republic of Germany for surrender of the respondent to face charges of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.

The respondent conceded that the Record of the Case and supplemental materials contained sufficient evidence to meet the prima facie threshold for committal but argued that procedural defects invalidated the process, including that the request did not originate from the German Minister of Justice, that the Canadian Minister’s Authority to Proceed was improperly delegated to a departmental lawyer, and that the arrest lacked a valid Interpol warrant.

The court held that certifications by a German public prosecutor satisfied the Extradition Act requirement that the Record of the Case be certified by a judicial or prosecuting authority, that the Minister’s authority to issue an Authority to Proceed may be delegated, and that the extradition judge lacked jurisdiction to review ministerial conduct absent evidence of bad faith or impropriety.

Finding the evidentiary and identity requirements met and no procedural defects, the court ordered committal for extradition.