E. Norman

The accused was charged with second degree murder following the death of his friend, who was found beaten to death in his rented room.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence of the accused's ex-wife, who testified that the accused confessed to the killing during a drunken phone call.

The court accepted the ex-wife's testimony, finding it corroborated by cell phone records and non-public details of the crime scene.

Despite evidence of the accused's intoxication, the court found he possessed the requisite mens rea for murder given the brutality of the assault and his subsequent actions to conceal the crime.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

The accused, a taxicab driver, was charged with second degree murder after running over an intoxicated passenger with his minivan.

The incident was captured on a residential surveillance camera.

The accused testified that he accidentally struck the victim while looking for oncoming traffic.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as irreconcilable with the video footage and internally illogical.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally drove his vehicle at the victim in anger and possessed the requisite mens rea for murder.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

The accused brought a Charter application to stay firearm charges or exclude a seized firearm, alleging excessive force during his arrest and breaches of his right to counsel.

The court found that the police did not use excessive force when arresting the fleeing accused.

The court also found no s. 7 breach regarding an officer commanding a witness to stop recording the arrest, as there was no actual prejudice to the accused's defence.

However, the Crown conceded that the accused's s. 10(b) rights were violated when an officer denigrated duty counsel's advice and threatened to charge the accused's family members if he did not confess.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the serious and deliberate nature of the police misconduct warranted the exclusion of the firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter to maintain the long-term repute of the justice system.

The appellant, a massage therapist, appealed his conviction for sexual assault against a client.

He argued the trial judge erred by not considering the defence of accident, by drawing a negative credibility inference from his failure to ask about the allegations when confronted by the complainant's husband, and by dismissing the husband's evidence as irrelevant to the extortion theory.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the defence of accident, that the credibility findings were reasonable, and that the trial judge properly considered and rejected the extortion theory.

The accused was found guilty of the attempted murder of his former wife, whom he stabbed multiple times, as well as assaults against her and their daughter, and breaching his bail conditions.

The court found the attack was unprovoked and involved a serious breach of trust, though it was not planned and deliberate.

The court held that section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, allowing for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 11 years and 31 days, reduced to 7 years, 5 months, and 6 days on the main count after applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody.

The offender was convicted by a jury of uttering a threat and assaulting his wife during an argument.

The assault consisted of a single slap to the face with no lasting physical harm.

The offender had no prior criminal record, had completed anger management and parenting programs prior to trial, and had already served 4 days in pre-sentence custody.

The court found that a conditional discharge was in the best interests of the offender and not contrary to the public interest.

The offender was granted a conditional discharge with 2 years of probation and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

A DNA order was declined.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a young child.

The Crown relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who adopted videotaped police statements admitted pursuant to s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defence challenged the reliability and credibility of the child witness based on inconsistencies and prior admitted lies about unrelated matters.

Applying governing jurisprudence on the assessment of child witnesses, the court held that inconsistencies on peripheral matters did not undermine the reliability of the core allegation.

Finding the complainant credible and reliable and noting the absence of any motive to fabricate, the court concluded the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual interference involving a 14‑year‑old complainant, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and breach of probation.

The court considered the offender’s extensive criminal record, commission of the offences while subject to a probation order, and the young age of the complainant as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s developmental delays, unstable upbringing, and relatively young age.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given repeated breaches and prior violent offences, the court imposed a custodial sentence with subsequent probation and several ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with assault and sexual assault arising from an altercation with a former partner after an argument near a bus terminal.

The Crown alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant and then forced sexual intercourse after threatening to post intimate photos online, while the defence argued self‑defence during the physical confrontation and consensual sexual activity.

The court applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.D., finding the accused’s testimony unreliable but also identifying significant credibility and reliability concerns in the complainant’s evidence, including inconsistencies, a recantation letter, delayed disclosure of key allegations, and continued contact between the parties.

Given the conflicting evidence and the weaknesses in the Crown’s case, the court concluded that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.