Elissa Hines Reimer

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual interference, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and incest arising from allegations that he repeatedly sexually abused his daughter over several years.

The defence challenged the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, emphasizing inconsistencies and incremental disclosure during police interviews and testimony.

The court accepted the complainant’s explanations for delayed and selective disclosure, noting the dynamics of trauma, familial relationships, and the difficulty of reporting incest.

After carefully scrutinizing credibility and reliability, the court found the complainant’s testimony compelling and consistent with lived experience.

The Crown proved the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was convicted on ten counts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle on a highway carelessly causing bodily harm contrary to section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident occurred on August 18, 2019, when the defendant failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with another vehicle, causing severe spinal cord injuries to the victim resulting in full paralysis.

The court imposed a $2,000 fine with one year to pay, a two-year probation order prohibiting driving for the first year and restricting driving to employment or education purposes in the second year, and required completion of an approved educational driving program.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit.

The Crown's evidence showed breath samples with a BAC of 100-110 mg/100ml.

The accused challenged the validity of the police investigation on Charter grounds, alleging violations of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure, arbitrary detention, and right to counsel.

While the court found the approved screening device demand was lawful based on reasonable suspicion, it found that the police violated the accused's right to counsel of choice by steering him toward duty counsel without providing him with the means to select a lawyer of his choosing.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the seriousness of the state conduct and the impact on the accused's Charter rights outweighed society's interest in a trial on the merits.