Dr. Darryl Mayers

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident where the complainant was highly intoxicated.

The complainant had no memory of the sexual activity, but DNA evidence confirmed intercourse occurred.

The court found the complainant lacked the capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication, noting she was essentially unconscious.

The court rejected the accused's defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, finding he knew or was reckless to the lack of consent and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, charged with the second-degree murder of his son, sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence to support a claim of self-defence analogous to battered spouse syndrome.

The proposed expert opined that the accused's actions fit the idea of a pre-emptive homicide as self-defence.

The court excluded this portion of the expert's opinion, finding it unnecessary, beyond the expert's qualifications, and liable to usurp the jury's function in assessing the accused's state of mind and the reasonableness of his actions under section 34(2) of the Criminal Code.

The young person accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with a heavily intoxicated complainant in a parking lot.

The complainant had limited memory of the events but recalled being held down and repeatedly saying no.

DNA evidence confirmed the presence of the accused's bodily fluids on the complainant.

The court found that the complainant's advanced state of intoxication rendered her incapable of consenting, and that she had also expressed her lack of consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on an over 80 charge.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent after finding that the failure to conduct an annual inspection of the breathalyzer amounted to improper maintenance, raising a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the results.

On appeal, the Crown argued that a 2012 Alcohol Test Committee position paper constituted new evidence justifying revisiting the Supreme Court's decision in St. Onge Lamoureux.

The summary conviction appeal judge rejected this argument but found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by elevating a recommendation for yearly inspections into a rule without a direct link to a malfunction.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.