F.B. Fitzpatrick J.

The accused, an Indigenous man, was found guilty of sexually assaulting his cousin after providing her with a substance she believed was crack cocaine.

The Crown sought a 3-year sentence, while the defence sought 18 months to 2 years.

The court considered the devastating impact on the victim, the accused's lack of a prior record, his rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated on unrelated charges, and his Indigenous background as detailed in a Gladue report.

The accused was sentenced to two years plus one day in a penitentiary, to be served consecutively to his current sentence.

The applicant, charged with various drug and property offences, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his rural property.

The police initially obtained a warrant to search for a handgun but subsequently found large amounts of cash and drugs, leading to a second warrant.

The court found the first warrant was overbroad and excised portions allowing searches of outbuildings.

The court also found the police breached the applicant's section 8 Charter rights by unreasonably seizing cash from his person during the initial entry.

Finally, the court ruled the second warrant was invalid due to improper 'adjudicator shopping' by the affiant, rendering the subsequent seizures warrantless.

The section 24(2) analysis was deferred to a later hearing.

The defendant hospital moved for security for costs against two groups of plaintiffs who were seeking to reopen a trial judgment under Rule 59.06 based on alleged fresh evidence.

The plaintiffs had previously lost at trial and on appeal, with significant unpaid costs awards against them.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish impecuniosity and that their Rule 59.06 motion did not have a good chance of success, as the alleged new evidence was either publicly available previously or irrelevant to the limitation period issue that defeated their claims.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $60,000 in security for costs.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion to exclude cannabis and cannabis resin seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant.

He argued the information to obtain failed to provide sufficient information about confidential informants' reliability and that the forced entry execution of the warrant was itself unreasonable under section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the governing search warrant review principles and the Supreme Court's section 8 jurisprudence on forced entry searches, the court held the warrant was validly issued and the police manner of entry was not shown to be excessive or unreasonable.

The application to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) was dismissed.