E. Guimond

The defendant sought to adduce evidence of school rumours from March 2017 in which the complainant allegedly made false allegations of sexual assault against her cousin.

The defendant sought to cross-examine the complainant about her involvement in these rumours to suggest she has a propensity to fabricate sexual allegations.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that any questions about the rumours would constitute other sexual activity evidence under section 276 of the Criminal Code and would require compliance with the statutory regime.

The court found that questions about the rumours and the complainant's involvement were inextricably linked to communications of a sexual nature and therefore triggered section 276 protections.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence lacked significant probative value and was substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect.

The applicant sought specific school records of the complainant relating to an inquiry by school administrators about an allegation that the complainant had been raped by her cousin.

The court conducted a stage one analysis under section 278 of the Criminal Code to determine whether the records met the threshold of "likely relevance." The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate case-specific information showing the records were likely relevant to an issue at trial.

The evidence was inconsistent and insufficient to establish that the records would contain information of value to the defence.

The application was dismissed at the first stage.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving with an excess blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

Police received a complaint of a possibly impaired driver, identified the vehicle by license plate, and arrested the defendant at his home.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and the breath sample demand under the Charter.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on reasonable grounds, dismissed the Charter application, and acquitted the defendant on the impaired driving charge but convicted him on the excess BAC charge.