Geneviève Eliany

This decision addresses the acquittal of R.N., a young person charged with historical sexual offences alleged to have occurred between 1984 and 1987.

The court carefully analyzed the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused, applying the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the framework from R. v. W.(D.).

Despite finding both witnesses credible, the judge identified reliability concerns and ultimately found reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s guilt.

The decision highlights the challenges in assessing historical abuse allegations, especially when evidence is conflicting and dates uncertain.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for a mother convicted after trial of assault with a weapon against her young son over nearly three years.

The court rejects the parties' joint proposal for a suspended sentence with probation, finding it insufficient to reflect the offender’s moral blameworthiness, the child’s vulnerability, and the serious harm caused.

The judge emphasizes the limited applicability of the Anthony-Cook test post-trial, the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in child abuse cases, and the aggravating factors including the pattern of conduct, breach of trust, and impact on the victim.

Despite mitigating factors such as the offender’s progress and lack of prior record, the court imposes an 18-month conditional sentence followed by two years probation, with ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a weapons prohibition.

This decision addresses sentencing for breaches of a prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code, imposed to protect children from sexual violence.

The accused, Lord Leland Gilbert, was acquitted of sexual offences but found guilty of breaching the prohibition order by associating with a child without required permissions.

The court imposed an 18-month global jail sentence (15 months for the prohibition breach and 3 months consecutive for breaching probation), followed by 3 years probation.

The decision emphasizes the seriousness of breaching such orders, the aggravating factors including the nature and blatant disregard of the breach, and the offender’s prior record.

The court also discusses the application of the Kienapple principle, Gladue considerations, and the jump principle in sentencing.

This decision addresses the evidentiary challenges in sexual offence cases involving child witnesses, focusing on the impact of cross-examination on the credibility and reliability of a young complainant.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against an eight-year-old child and breaching a court order prohibiting communication with children under 16 without permission.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, particularly regarding whether the accused was seen in person or only via video chats, which undermined the reliability of the sexual offence allegations.

The complainant’s mother’s testimony was also found to be neither credible nor reliable, with concerns about possible coaching and financial motives.

However, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused breached the prohibition order by being in the complainant’s company and communicating with him, including via video chats, and convicted the accused on those counts while acquitting on the sexual offence charges.

The Crown sought to admit the defendant's 911 call statements, where he confessed to "hurting someone," arguing the 911 operator was not a person in authority or, alternatively, that the statements were voluntary.

The defence argued the operator was a person in authority and the statements were involuntary due to the defendant's intoxication and emotional state, which prevented him from having an operating mind.

The court found the 911 operator was a person in authority but concluded, after a voir dire, that the defendant possessed an operating mind at the time of the call, making his statements voluntary and admissible.