Dr. Charis Kepron

The accused was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and choking following a sexual encounter with the complainant.

The complainant alleged the accused violently grabbed, bit, and choked her without consent, while the accused maintained the encounter was consensual 'rough sex' and denied biting or choking her.

The court admitted expert evidence from a forensic pathologist who testified the complainant's injuries were inconsistent with bite marks.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and corroboration of the accused's account by the expert.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder following the death of her three-year-old child from blunt force head trauma, applied for a directed verdict on both second-degree murder and manslaughter.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and expert medical testimony indicating the child suffered multiple inflicted injuries of varying ages while in the exclusive care of the accused.

The court applied the Sheppard test and found sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could conclude the accused committed an unlawful act causing death, and that she had the requisite intent for murder.

The application for a directed verdict was dismissed.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial based on the transcript of a prior jury trial that ended in a mistrial, the court found that the accused inflicted fatal head injuries and extensive bruising on a five-and-a-half-month-old infant while babysitting.

The court rejected the defence theory that the child's mother caused the injuries after returning from a wedding and found the accused's alternative explanations, including prior falls and a shower incident, to be fabricated.

Applying W.(D.), the court held the Crown had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the fatal injuries.

However, given the uncertainty in the medical evidence as to mechanism and force, and the accused's post-assault conduct suggesting concern for the child, the court was not satisfied that the Crown proved the subjective foresight of likely death required by s. 229(a)(ii).