2 total
Accused acquitted of sexual assault due to significant credibility and reliability issues with complainant's testimony.
The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a complainant who briefly worked for him.
The complainant alleged she was sexually assaulted at a nightclub, at a condo, and later at the accused's home, claiming she was highly intoxicated and 'blacked out' during parts of the events.
The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, noting physical impossibilities in her descriptions, selective memory, and actions inconsistent with her stated lack of romantic interest in the accused.
Applying the W.(D.) principles to the defence evidence, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove the sexual assaults occurred beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
Court affirms broad discretionary approach for bail forfeiture, balancing surety diligence with the 'pull of bail'.
The Minister of Justice applied for the forfeiture of recognizances entered into by sureties for two individuals who failed to surrender into custody pending their extradition proceedings.
The Court of Appeal reconsidered the test for estreatment, rejecting both a strict rule of total forfeiture and a purely fault-based approach.
Instead, the court affirmed a broad discretionary approach where the surety's diligence is one of several factors, balanced against the need to maintain the 'pull of bail'.
Applying these principles, the court ordered full forfeiture for one surety who lacked diligence and was likely complicit, and partial forfeiture for the other sureties based on financial hardship, the subsequent apprehension of one fugitive, and the excessive amount of the original bail.
