Elizabeth Brown

A registered massage therapist (later unregistered) was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and mischief.

The Crown alleged that over a period from 2013 to 2021, the defendant engaged in unwanted touching of complainants' genitalia and breasts during massage treatments, as well as improper draping and exposure.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming any touching was accidental or consensual.

The trial involved extensive evidence from multiple complainants, expert testimony regarding professional massage therapy standards, and a successful similar fact application.

The court found the defendant guilty of eight counts of sexual assault and one count of mischief, while acquitting on two counts where the evidence did not meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard.

In a sexual assault trial, the Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence from multiple complainants, arguing it demonstrated a pattern of conduct and modus operandi, and that its probative value outweighed potential prejudice.

The defendant opposed, citing insufficient similarities and the risk of collusion.

The court granted the application, finding significant, non-generic similarities across complainant accounts that made innocent coincidence improbable.

The judge determined the evidence was reasonably capable of belief and that the risks of moral and reasoning prejudice were attenuated in a judge-alone trial, allowing the evidence to be used to rebut potential defences, prove the actus reus, and bolster complainant credibility.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated assault following an execution-style shooting at a bird-dog trial event.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including motive, opportunity, and post-offence conduct, as well as eyewitness identification.

The court found significant discrepancies in the eyewitness descriptions of the shooter and the shooter's vehicle compared to the accused and his vehicle.

Applying the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the identity of the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The offender, Audley Crooks, was convicted by a jury of multiple Criminal Code offences including two counts of sexual assault, human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, and advertising sexual services.

The offences occurred over a two-week period in August 2020, involving a vulnerable complainant who was already engaged in sex work.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the serious nature of the offences, the victim's vulnerability, the offender's prior conviction for a similar offence, and his lack of insight.

Mitigating factors included the offender's efforts to change his lifestyle while on bail, family support, and the fact that the complainant was already in the sex trade.

The court applied "Duncan credit" for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and "Downes credit" for strict bail conditions.

The Crown sought a 14-year global sentence, while the defence sought 3-5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight years imprisonment before credit, which was reduced to six years after accounting for 24 months of pre-sentence and bail credit.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a non-communication order.

The Crown applied to designate the offender as a dangerous offender following a conviction for arson.

The offender has severe cognitive disabilities and a history of trauma, and sets fires as a coping mechanism.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

However, the court also found that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) historically failed to provide the offender with appropriate, tailored mental health treatment, resulting in prolonged periods of segregation.

The court held that serving an indeterminate sentence in a penitentiary without meaningful treatment would extinguish any hope of rehabilitation and parole, constituting an anticipatory breach of the offender's rights against cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

As a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter, the court ordered CSC to transfer the offender to a provincial psychiatric hospital within 120 days and retained supervisory jurisdiction to monitor compliance.

During a dangerous offender proceeding, the court appointed an amicus curiae to assist with constitutional issues relating to the anticipated conditions of the offender's incarceration.

The offender had extreme cognitive deficits and specialized needs, raising potential Charter issues under ss. 7, 12, and 15 if an indeterminate sentence were imposed.

The Crown opposed the appointment, but the court found it necessary because the application of the Charter to conditions of imprisonment is a specialized area of law outside the scope of traditional criminal practice, and defence counsel was not in a position to litigate these issues.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following convictions for aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and extortion.

The offences involved the offender confining and repeatedly cutting a victim over a drug debt.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal history, which included numerous violent offences and a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.

The court found the criteria for a dangerous offender designation were met under s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court concluded that the risk could be managed in the community after a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 12.5 years, leaving 4 years and 164 days to serve after pre-sentence credit, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused, Johnathan McIlvride-Lister, sought to strike her guilty plea to one count of sexual assault, asserting factual innocence despite having entered a plea.

The court examined whether the plea was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal, and whether striking the plea was in the interests of justice to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The accused cited pressures including a significant sentencing disparity between a plea and a trial, financial constraints, perceived lack of success at trial, and concerns about accommodation for her transgender status in custody.

The court found the plea to be voluntary and informed, but acknowledged initial equivocation regarding the facts.

Ultimately, the court accepted that the accused maintained a belief in her innocence and pleaded guilty for pragmatic reasons unrelated to culpability, concluding that such a plea constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

The court also expressed discomfort with the Crown's plea offer condition that defence counsel not cross-examine the complainant at the preliminary inquiry.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with a developmentally delayed and visually impaired resident at a rest home.

The central issue was whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity.

The court found that the complainant's initial statements to staff indicated the encounter was consensual, and she only alleged assault after her mother arrived and reacted angrily.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that the evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding consent, resulting in an acquittal.

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), sought approval for a second key employee retention plan (KERP 2), while a group of unions and representative counsel (Moving Parties) sought an order to terminate the suspension of other post-employment benefits (OPEBs).

The court granted the KERP 2 motion, finding it fair and reasonable for business stability and restructuring efforts.

The OPEB motion was denied, as the court found no fundamental improvement in USSC's profitability to warrant OPEB reinstatement, and that USSC's proposed one-time contribution of $2.7 million to a transition fund for retired employees appropriately balanced competing interests during the ongoing sales and investor solicitation process (SISP).

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon (a truck) against his domestic partner, assault causing bodily harm against a fellow inmate, and driving over 80.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a sentence of 46.5 months (including pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years of probation.

The court accepted the joint submission but had to decide two contested issues: whether to impose a no-contact order with the domestic partner despite her wish to maintain the relationship, and whether to order restitution to insurance companies.

The court imposed the no-contact order to protect the victim and her children, prioritizing public safety over her autonomy, but declined to order restitution due to the accused's inability to pay and the uncertainty of the amounts.

During a jury trial for sexual assault, defence counsel sought to use Sandro Boticelli's painting 'Calumny of Apelles' as a visual prop during his closing address to illustrate the theme of false accusation.

The trial judge ruled that the painting could not be used, finding that its depiction of women as symbolic representations of slander, ignorance, suspicion, fraud, and conspiracy risked resurrecting offensive myths and stereotypes about female complainants.

The court concluded that the potential for prejudice and distortion of the fact-finding process substantially outweighed any legitimate persuasive impact.