Nicole Vachon

This decision addresses a mid-trial application by the Crown to admit four out-of-court hearsay statements from two child complainants (H.B. and S.B.) in a sexual assault trial.

Due to the children's inability to provide meaningful in-court testimony, the Crown sought to admit their video-taped statements to police and H.B.'s utterances to her parents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, requiring proof of necessity and threshold reliability.

The court found necessity was met for all statements.

For reliability, H.B.'s statements to her parents and police were deemed reliable, significantly corroborated by forensic DNA evidence.

However, S.B.'s video statement to police was found unreliable due to inconsistencies, lack of detail, and insufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

The accused, Terrence McLaren, was tried on three counts of breaking and entering dwelling houses with intent to commit theft or committing theft.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence found at two separate crime scenes (a water bottle and a toque) that matched McLaren's profile.

The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence, including the "solitary reasonable inference" test and the holistic assessment of DNA evidence.

The court found that the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence was that McLaren committed the offenses, leading to a conviction on all counts.

The defendant was charged with robbery of a sex-trade worker, with the prosecution relying primarily on DNA evidence found on the complainant and a weak in-court identification.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as there were too many unknowns regarding the DNA transfer mechanism and source, and the direct identification evidence was unreliable.

The court emphasized the high burden of proof in criminal trials, particularly in circumstantial cases requiring the exclusion of all reasonable alternative inferences to guilt.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused, P.L., was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault involving his 16-year-old great-niece, G.F. The incident occurred at P.L.'s home after G.F. had consumed alcohol.

The court found P.L. not guilty of sexual exploitation, as the Crown failed to prove a position of trust or authority or dependency.

However, P.L. was found guilty of sexual assault based on G.F.'s credible testimony, corroborated by DNA evidence and physical bruising, establishing that sexual activity occurred without G.F.'s consent while she was intoxicated and vulnerable.

The Crown sought to commit the accused to trial on several charges, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm with intent, arising from a home invasion robbery.

The preliminary inquiry judge found sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial on the charges of robbery, break and enter, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm, based on party liability.

However, the judge discharged the accused on the attempted murder charge, finding no evidence that the accused was the shooter or had the requisite subjective intent to kill.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a 13-year-old complainant whom he met in downtown Ottawa.

The accused argued that the complainant fabricated the events to avoid punishment for skipping school and shoplifting, and alternatively raised the defence of mistaken belief of age.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding inconsistencies and motive to fabricate.

The court also found the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age.

The accused was found guilty of both charges, with a stay to be entered on one conviction.