Elysia Nocida

Following trial convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm arising from a road-rage confrontation, the court determined sentence.

The court held denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing principles but found a jail sentence was not required on these facts.

Weighing aggravating factors including leaving the scene and a false firearm report against significant mitigating factors, including first-offender status and strong rehabilitative history, the court concluded a conditional sentence remained proportionate.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles and authorities on parity and conditional sentence denunciatory effect, the court imposed a substantial community-based sanction with house arrest conditions.

The offender received an 18-month conditional sentence, followed by 2 years’ probation, a 2-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

Wayne Afemui was charged with assault with a weapon and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm under ss. 267(a) and 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony and video surveillance to prove that Afemui intentionally struck the complainant, Sheldon Arnold, with his vehicle in a circular driveway after a verbal altercation.

Afemui testified in his own defense claiming the contact was accidental and that he was trying to escape a perceived threat.

The court found Afemui's evidence not credible or reliable, accepted the Crown's evidence, and concluded that Afemui's driving was a marked departure from the standard of care and that he intentionally hit Arnold with his car.

Afemui was found guilty on both charges.

This was a ten-day judge-alone criminal trial where the defendant, D.F., faced 28 counts of physical and sexual assault against his former partner, C.L., alleged to have occurred between 2008 and 2020.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, asserting that the complainant fabricated the allegations in the context of a family law dispute, particularly after learning he had a new partner.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be neither credible nor reliable, citing numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and the manipulation of text messages to falsely imply admissions from the defendant.

Conversely, the defendant's testimony was found credible and reliable.

The court dismissed all charges, concluding that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and explicitly stating belief in the defendant's account.