Fara Rupert

The appellant, Abigail Morris, appealed her conviction for sexual interference (sexual assault conviction stayed under Kienapple principle) involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The appeal challenged whether voluntariness requires subjective consent of the accused, the admissibility of prior sexual communications (Seaboyer application), reliance on myths and stereotypes, and the use of context evidence to infer voluntariness.

The court dismissed the appeal, rejecting the appellant's premise that voluntariness equates to subjective consent of the accused.

It found no error in admitting the prior sexual communications, nor in the trial judge's determination of voluntariness, which was based on the complainant's testimony and the appellant's own statements, not on myths or stereotypes.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault arising from an incident alleged to have occurred in the washroom of a bar where he was the manager and the complainant was training as a bartender.

The Crown alleged the accused forced oral sex on the complainant while she was intoxicated and vomiting.

The court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's testimony, rendering her account unreliable and untrustworthy.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The Crown applied for testimonial aids for a key witness in a second-degree murder trial.

The witness, who suffers from schizophrenia and other mental health conditions, witnessed the stabbing.

The Crown sought to admit the witness's videotaped police interview under s. 715.2 of the Criminal Code and to allow him to testify via CCTV under s. 486.2.

The court dismissed the s. 715.2 application, finding the witness capable of communicating his evidence cogently.

However, the court granted the s. 486.2 application, allowing the witness to testify via CCTV, as his mental disability and anxiety could make it difficult for him to give a full and candid account in the accused's presence.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash an order committing him to stand trial for second-degree murder.

The applicant argued that the preliminary hearing judge exceeded her jurisdiction by failing to consider exculpatory evidence regarding the mens rea element of the offence.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary hearing judge properly considered the totality of the evidence, including the exculpatory statement, and correctly applied the test for committal based on circumstantial evidence of mens rea derived from surveillance video.

The application for certiorari was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to stand trial.

This decision concerns a bail application by Isaah Picody-Naveau, who is charged with second-degree murder and other criminal code offences, including domestic violence.

The applicant sought bail under sections 515 and 522 of the Criminal Code, while the Crown applied under section 524(8) to cancel his prior release.

The court considered the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention.

Despite the applicant's history of breaching release orders and violent temper, the court granted bail.

Key factors influencing the decision included the significant time spent in custody (over 315 days), a compelling Gladue report highlighting intergenerational trauma and a difficult upbringing, a strong proposed release plan relying on family sureties and GPS monitoring, and the perceived weakness of the Crown's second-degree murder case, particularly regarding the mens rea element.

The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail as articulated in R. v. Antic.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter using a firearm after shooting and killing his former girlfriend during a confrontation with her new boyfriend.

The court found the victim's death was an unintended consequence of the accused firing at the new boyfriend.

The court denied additional pre-sentence custody credit for lockdown conditions, finding no evidence of particularly harsh treatment.

The accused was sentenced to 13 years' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody credit, reflecting the high moral culpability of bringing and discharging a loaded handgun at a residence.

The accused, a parish priest, faced five counts of sexual assault involving a complainant, J.B., who was a teenager at the time of the alleged incidents.

The allegations included inappropriate touching during a shower and massage, and providing alcohol.

The court conducted a W.D. analysis, assessing J.B.'s credibility and noting several inconsistencies and improbabilities in his testimony, as well as his admission of untruthful evidence at a preliminary hearing.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the discrepancies and inconsistencies, coupled with the accused's denial, prevented the Crown from proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, applied for leave to cross-examine the affiants who swore Informations to Obtain (ITOs) for a wiretap authorization and a general warrant.

Applying the Garofoli test, the court assessed whether cross-examination would elicit testimony tending to discredit the preconditions for the authorizations.

The court granted leave to cross-examine one detective on specific, limited subjects, including his note-taking regarding attempts to contact the applicant, his characterization of certain witness evidence, and investigative necessity.

The court deferred its decision regarding the second affiant until the completion of the first affiant's evidence.

The accused, charged with second degree murder and attempted murder following a fatal stabbing over a drug dispute, applied for bail pending trial.

The court evaluated the proposed release plans, which included sureties and electronic monitoring.

The court found the proposed sureties to be weak and unreliable, failing to satisfy the secondary ground that there was no substantial likelihood of further offences.

Furthermore, given the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, and the violent circumstances, the court held that detention was necessary under the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was denied.

On a Crown application in a criminal trial, the court determined the admissibility of multiple out-of-court statements made by the deceased to family members, friends, and police.

Applying the principled hearsay approach, the court held that necessity was established by the declarant's death and assessed threshold reliability statement by statement.

Statements made under oath in a peace bond application were admitted as sufficiently reliable, as were certain statements to police tendered as circumstantial evidence of the deceased's state of mind.

Other statements were excluded where their meaning was unclear, relevance was lacking, or the surrounding circumstances did not provide sufficient indicia of reliability.

This was a criminal evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of statements made by a deceased declarant.

The court admitted several statements on consent, admitted others under the state of mind exception, and excluded certain statements as irrelevant or for failure to meet threshold reliability.

The ruling was interlocutory and addressed itemized statements individually by chart number.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, operation over 80 mg/100 ml of blood alcohol, dangerous driving, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter application challenging the validity of the breath demand and the admissibility of evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired driving, operation over 80, and dangerous driving, but acquitted him of failing to remain at the scene.

The court found that while the initial breath demand by the arresting officer was not read as soon as practicable, the subsequent demand by the qualified technician was valid and properly obtained.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg/100 ml contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused challenged the validity of the traffic stop, the grounds for the roadside screening demand, and the timing of rights to counsel.

The court found that the traffic stop was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act, that the officer had reasonable grounds to make the roadside demand, and that any delay in providing rights to counsel was minimal and did not constitute a Charter violation.

The court dismissed the Charter application and found the accused guilty.

A comprehensive trial judgment in a youth criminal justice matter involving multiple counts of trafficking in persons under 18, procuring prostitution, sexual assault, child pornography, forcible confinement, uttering threats, and related offences.

The court heard evidence from 22 civilian witnesses and 6 police officers regarding incidents involving five complainants.

The defendant was found guilty on the majority of counts, with acquittals entered on certain counts relating to assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and administering a stupefying drug where evidence was insufficient or unreliable.

The judgment provides detailed factual findings for each complainant and applies relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, impaired driving, and dangerous driving arising from an incident in which the complainant was confined in a vehicle, threatened with death, and sexually assaulted in a remote area while attempting to return home.

The complainant escaped from the moving vehicle and was rescued by passing motorists, after which the offender engaged in dangerous and impaired driving while fleeing.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the offender’s criminal record, commission of offences while on bail, the complainant’s vulnerability, and the risk posed to the public.

Finding that previous non‑custodial sanctions had failed, the court imposed custodial sentences with concurrent and consecutive components.

Ancillary orders including DNA collection, sex offender registration, weapons prohibition, and a driving prohibition were also imposed.

A bail hearing for a youth accused of serious charges including human trafficking, forcible confinement, sexual assault, possession of child pornography, abduction of a child under fourteen, sexual exploitation, robbery, assault, and administering a drug.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed release to her older sister's residence with a $2,000 bond and house arrest conditions.

The court found the Crown had shown cause for detention based on concerns regarding the strength of the case, the gravity of the offences, evidence of organized and escalating violence, and inadequacy of the proposed supervision plan.

The court detained the accused on both secondary and tertiary grounds, finding that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by release.