Emily Pecorella

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault of a 19-year-old passenger.

The Crown alleged that after dropping off the passenger's friend, the accused rubbed the complainant's thigh, undid her belt, and placed his hand inside her shorts without consent.

The accused claimed there was a consensual arrangement whereby the complainant agreed to expose her breasts in exchange for a free cab ride, and that he therefore had consent to touch her.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence as fabricated and inconsistent, finding that the complainant's silence and fear did not constitute consent.

The judge convicted the accused, finding no air of reality to the defence of mistaken belief in consent.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with greater than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on October 23, 2010.

The trial was initially scheduled for August 12, 2011, but was not reached due to an overbooked court list.

The matter was then adjourned to November 30, 2011.

The court found that the total institutional delay of approximately 11 months, just outside the 8-10 month guideline established in R. v. Morin, combined with actual prejudice to the accused (including doubled legal fees and emotional stress from two trial dates), constituted a violation of the accused's section 11(b) rights.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with attempted robbery of OxyContin tablets contrary to section 344(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on evidence that the accused possessed a holdup note demanding 80 mg OxyContin tablets, was observed loitering in the pharmacy area of a Shoppers Drug Mart, and allegedly displayed a knife.

The trial judge found that the accused did not possess a knife, rejected the theory that he was associated with another individual in the store, and determined that while the accused may have once contemplated robbing a drug store, there remained a reasonable doubt as to whether he intended to rob this particular store on this particular date.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty, holding that the Crown had not proven the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.