Michael Bissonnette

This case concerns the trial of David Hui and Musab Saboon for the first-degree murder and kidnapping of Lee Chiodo.

The victim's body was found shot in the head on Mission Island.

The Crown's case heavily relied on the testimony of Marshall Hardy-Fox, an accomplice whose murder charge was withdrawn after he implicated the accused.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning to Hardy-Fox's evidence, scrutinizing it carefully but ultimately finding it credible due to corroborating independent evidence, including Facebook messages, surveillance videos, and forensic findings.

The court found that the kidnapping "crystallized" with threats and a gun in the car, and that the murder was both constructive (arising from the kidnapping/unlawful confinement) and planned and deliberate.

Both accused were found guilty of kidnapping and first-degree murder.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing unreasonable delay under s 11(b) of the Charter, lack of consent, and insufficient identification evidence.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the Charter and consent grounds but found that the trial judge erred in relying on DNA evidence because the Crown failed to properly authenticate the hospital records and establish the chain of custody for the rape kit.

As the trial judge relied heavily on this inadmissible DNA evidence to establish identity, the conviction was quashed.

However, because there was other circumstantial identification evidence, a new trial was ordered rather than an acquittal.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of the complainant, his 15-year-old cousin.

The complainant testified to being intoxicated and sexually assaulted in the accused's van, experiencing pain in her genital and anal areas.

The accused denied the allegations, providing inconsistent alibi evidence and speculative explanations for the presence of his semen in the complainant's rectal cavity.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable and his explanations incredible, accepting the complainant's corroborated evidence, including DNA analysis confirming the accused's semen in her rectal cavity.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant alleged the accused touched her breasts and vagina while she was passed out after a night of heavy drinking.

The accused denied the contact.

The court found the complainant credible but unreliable due to her intoxication and contradictions from other witnesses regarding key details like sleeping arrangements and interactions.

DNA evidence on the complainant's bra matched the accused, but the defense proposed an innocent transfer through profuse slobbering during repeated social interactions over the drunken weekend.

While finding the innocent transfer implausible, the court could not definitively rule it out, leading to reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a complainant on April 3, 2015, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant was unable to identify her assailant as the assault occurred in darkness and she kept her eyes closed.

The defence raised issues of identity and continuity of forensic evidence.

DNA evidence from a sexual assault kit, collected from the complainant's body, was matched to the accused with a probability of 1 in 110 quadrillion.

Circumstantial evidence placed the accused in the bedroom where the assault occurred.

The court admitted the forensic evidence despite the defence challenge to its continuity and convicted the accused based on the overwhelming evidence.

The Crown prosecuted two accused for robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, and related offences arising from a failed drug transaction on December 4, 2012, outside the Nickel City Hotel in Greater Sudbury.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated an unprovoked knife attack on the female accused, which the male accused defended against.

The court rejected this defence of necessity, finding instead that the accused had planned to rob the complainant of money during a drug deal.

The court convicted both accused of robbery and related offences while staying certain charges as duplicitous under the Kienapple and Prince principles.