Erin Norman

The accused was charged with luring a child and exposing genitals for a sexual purpose.

The Crown alleged the accused sent explicit pictures and messages to the complainant, who was under 16, via Facebook.

The court found the accused guilty of luring a child, based on circumstantial evidence including the use of his known nickname and email, and post-offence conduct indicating an attempt to destroy evidence.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of exposing genitals, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the penis in the pictures was that of the accused.

The offender was found guilty of criminal harassment following the end of an extra-marital affair with the victim.

He sent unwanted text messages, including a threat to go 'Rambo' on her, and left a disturbing voicemail.

The Crown sought 30-45 days in custody, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but noted the offender's lack of a prior record and positive presentence report.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, declining a conditional discharge due to the threatening nature of the communications.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment following a brief sexual relationship with the complainant.

The complainant alleged that the accused forced her to engage in non-consensual anal intercourse in his truck, and subsequently sent her numerous unwanted and threatening text messages.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual assault, finding that the conflicting evidence on consent left a reasonable doubt.

However, the court convicted the accused of criminal harassment, concluding that his repeated, unwanted communications caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety.

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 sentenced for sexually assaulting an unconscious, intoxicated friend and breaching a probation order.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's prior criminal record, the extreme vulnerability of the victim, and the offender's unaddressed alcoholism.

A total sentence of 39 months' imprisonment was imposed, reduced by 19.5 months of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a net sentence of 19 months and 2 weeks.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and breach of probation.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on eyewitness testimony that the accused was positioned on top of an unconscious woman in a park, DNA evidence showing the complainant's DNA on the accused's penis, and statements allegedly made by the accused.

The accused testified that his contact with the complainant was innocent and that her DNA came to be on his penis through a prank involving a tissue.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the eyewitness evidence, the accused's incriminating statements, and the DNA evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had intercourse with the unconscious complainant.

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.

Following a jury trial, the offender was convicted of sexual assault, common assault, and uttering a death threat against an intimate partner.

The offences involved forced vaginal intercourse accompanied by violence, physical assault during a dispute, and a later threat to kill the complainant.

The court considered aggravating factors including the violent nature of the sexual assault, the intimate relationship context, the victim’s vulnerability due to serious illness, and prior foreign convictions for sexual offences entered on a plea of nolo contendere.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

A total sentence of four years’ imprisonment was ordered along with ancillary orders including DNA collection, a weapons prohibition, and registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

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 challenged the admissibility of breathalyzer results, arguing that the police officer lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion to make an approved screening device demand.

The officer had stopped the accused after observing him drive away from a strip club notorious for drunk driving, noting bloodshot eyes and an admission of consuming one beer.

The court held that the officer's suspicion was objectively reasonable and the demand was lawful.

Consequently, the Charter application was dismissed, and the breath test results were ruled admissible.

The accused was tried on charges of assault with a weapon, uttering threats to cause death, sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 16, and breach of probation.

The allegations arose from two incidents involving a teenage complainant and her mother, including unwanted sexual touching of the minor in a stairwell and later threats with a sharp metal object during an argument.

The defence argued the complainants were not credible due to inconsistencies, alleged motives to fabricate, and post‑offence conduct.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the complainants credible and the discrepancies minor and explainable given the age of the young complainant and passage of time.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon, uttering threats, sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of probation, with a stay entered on the sexual assault count under the Kienapple principle.

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.