Erin McNamara

A young person was charged with multiple firearms offences following the discovery of a loaded semi-automatic firearm and ammunition in a satchel upon his person.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the firearm on the basis that it was obtained in violation of his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown and defence agreed that if the evidence was admitted, the accused would be found guilty; if excluded, he would be acquitted.

The court found that the investigative detention was arbitrary, the searches were unlawful, and the accused was denied his right to counsel.

The court concluded that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the firearm, resulting in acquittal on all counts.

A young person (J.J.) was charged with three sexual offences arising from events at a party where the complainant (A.G.), who was heavily intoxicated, was sexually assaulted by multiple males.

The accused was charged with sexual assault with a weapon (hairbrush), sexual assault as a party to the offence, and sexual assault simpliciter.

The court found that the complainant did not consent to any of the sexual touching and that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The court rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, finding no air of reality to the defence.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

The accused were charged with sexual assault following an incident involving alleged non-consensual sexual activity after a night of drinking.

During the jury trial, the defence brought a mid‑trial application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code seeking to cross‑examine the complainant about a prior incident involving discussion of “threesomes” and a kiss with one accused months earlier.

The court held the prior incident constituted “sexual activity” within the meaning of s. 276.

Although the evidence was a specific instance of sexual activity and had some relevance to credibility after questioning in the Crown’s examination‑in‑chief, the court concluded its probative value was minimal and substantially outweighed by prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The proposed evidence risked inviting stereotypical reasoning about sexual history and did not meaningfully assist in determining the central issue of consent.