Elizabeth Hellinga

The applicant, charged with sexual interference and sexual assault, sought production of records from Tikinagan Child and Family Services and the Ontario Provincial Police relating to the complainant.

The court applied the two-part Mills test for production of third-party records.

Production of Tikinagan records was ordered due to apparent inconsistencies with preliminary inquiry testimony, while production of OPP records was denied as they were deemed speculative and not likely relevant.

Conditions were imposed on the production of the Tikinagan records to protect privacy interests.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, sexual interference with a person under 16 contrary to section 151, and sexual assault contrary to section 271.

The Crown withdrew the section 271 charge.

A voir dire was held to determine whether the accused's right to counsel was violated and whether statements should be excluded.

The court found a minor Charter breach regarding the right to counsel but admitted the statements into evidence, finding that exclusion would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A thirteen-year-old accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code against a twelve-year-old complainant, his cousin.

The Crown alleged the accused forcibly engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse with the complainant without consent.

The accused claimed the sexual activity was consensual, relying on a purported Facebook message from the complainant.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the accused's account, finding the sexual activity was performed under duress and without consent.

The judge convicted the accused, noting the accused's consumption of marijuana, evasiveness regarding timing, and inability to explain details of the incident.

The judge also considered Gladue factors affecting the complainant's credibility and circumstances.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the complainant in the abdomen on October 22, 2012.

The Crown alleged the accused stabbed the complainant with a kitchen knife, causing serious injury including puncture of the gall bladder.

The accused claimed self-defence, asserting he was attacked by multiple individuals and stabbed in fear for his safety.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused's version inconsistent with medical evidence, witness testimony, and physical evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault, noting he had the opportunity to flee before confrontation but chose to turn around and confront the complainants.