Emma Susan Andrée Michelle Loignon-Giroux

The appellant appealed convictions for mischief and obstructing police arising from his presence in a restricted area on Wellington Street during the Freedom Convoy occupation of Ottawa on February 19, 2022.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding police had common law authority to secure the area, that his arrest violated s. 9 of the Charter, that the search incident to arrest breached s. 8 of the Charter, and that the evidence should have been excluded.

The appeal court found the trial judge correctly applied the ancillary powers doctrine and properly assessed the officer's reasonable grounds for arrest.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

The appellant, Scott Hockaday, appealed his conviction on two counts of mischief related to his participation in the 2022 Ottawa "Freedom Convoy" protest.

The court reviewed the lawfulness of his arrest, the admissibility of evidence obtained as a result, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding his intent.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds, the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error, and the evidence supported the conviction.

The court allowed the appeal of Erwin Blanco’s conviction for sexual assault, finding that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient regarding the complainant’s state of mind and the issue of consent.

The trial judge failed to reconcile conflicting evidence about whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity, particularly her statements that she thought the activity “felt nice” and that she was “very tired.” The court also found that the trial judge did not properly address whether any consent was vitiated by abuse of a position of trust or authority under section 273.1(2)(c) of the Criminal Code.

As a result, a new trial was ordered.

At the conclusion of the Crown's case in a first-degree murder trial, the accused applied for a directed verdict, seeking to remove the elevation of murder to first degree based on unlawful confinement and criminal harassment from jury consideration.

The court orally dismissed the application regarding criminal harassment.

In these written reasons, the court granted the application concerning unlawful confinement, finding no evidence of a distinct act of confinement separate from the murder itself, thus precluding first-degree murder liability on that ground.

Randall Hillier, charged with multiple offences related to the "Freedom Convoy," sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The total delay was approximately 34 months and 28 days.

The court deducted 65 days for defence-caused delay (counsel's refusal to attend a pretrial conference) and 40 days for exceptional circumstances (Supreme Court's Haevischer decision requiring re-hearing of a motion).

The net delay of 31 months and 13 days still exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling, leading the court to grant the application and stay the charges.

The Crown sought rulings on the voluntariness of a statement given by the accused to police and the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct evidence.

The court found the statement voluntary and admissible, applying the *Oickle* factors.

However, the court dismissed the application to admit prior discreditable conduct evidence, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, despite its relevance to party liability, citing concerns about reasoning prejudice and the unproven nature of some prior charges.

The accused faced multiple Criminal Code and Provincial Offences Act charges arising from an incident during the "Rolling Thunder" event in Ottawa.

Charges included dangerous operation of a conveyance, flight from police, failing to stop after an accident, resisting arrest, refusing a breath demand, and breaching release conditions.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous operation, flight from police, resisting arrest, refusing a breath demand, and breaching a geographical release condition.

The accused was found not guilty of failing to stop after an accident and breaching a release condition related to participating in "Freedom Convoy" events, as the court found "Rolling Thunder" to be a distinct event.

Provincial offence charges for driving without an ignition interlock device and without insurance were dismissed, while charges for failing to obey police directions and having open liquor in a vehicle resulted in convictions.

The accused, Bevin Kerry Degale, faced charges of aggravated sexual assault and assault.

The assault charge was dismissed on a non-suit motion.

The aggravated sexual assault charge proceeded based on circumstantial evidence, as the complainant did not testify.

The court found the actus reus of aggravated sexual assault (sexual touching, serious bodily harm, and lack of consent) proven beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on res gestae hearsay statements and forensic evidence.

However, the mens rea (knowledge of lack of consent or intent to cause bodily harm) was not proven due to the absence of direct evidence regarding the interaction.

Consequently, the charge of aggravated sexual assault was dismissed.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of five hearsay statements made by the complainant in a criminal trial for aggravated sexual assault and assault.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine if the statements were admissible under the common law res gestae exception or the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The judge admitted two statements under res gestae, and partially admitted a third under the principled exception (a gesture and statement about location, but not the assertion of assault).

The remaining two statements were deemed inadmissible due to a lack of substantive reliability or because the police notes did not constitute a "statement" of the declarant.