Maja Popovic

The accused, J.P., was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving a five-year-old complainant.

The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused being found naked in bed with the complainant whose shorts and underwear were down, inculpatory statements by the accused, and DNA evidence.

The court found the mother's evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies and emotional state, and the expert DNA evidence inconclusive regarding the source and timing of semen.

The accused's testimony was disbelieved due to inconsistencies.

However, considering the evidence as a whole, the court was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt, leading to dismissal of all charges.

The accused was charged with assault, unlawful confinement, and failing to comply with a recognizance following an attack on a complainant.

The Crown's case relied primarily on DNA evidence found in a glove dropped by the assailant, which matched the accused's DNA with a high statistical probability.

The Crown also presented evidence that the accused's appearance was consistent with the complainant's generic description and that similar clothing was found in the accused's residence.

The court, however, found that the DNA evidence alone was insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given the presence of DNA from other individuals on the glove and the generic nature of the physical description and clothing.

Citing principles from R. v. Villaroman and R. v. Wills, the court emphasized that alternative inferences need not be based on proven facts and that probable guilt is insufficient for conviction.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.