Graham Theodore Clark

The defendant, charged with historical sexual offences against his daughter, applied under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of the complainant's previous inconsistent statements regarding the paternity of a miscarried pregnancy.

The Crown concurrently applied under the Kinamore framework to introduce evidence of the complainant's sexual inactivity and bleeding during the alleged first assault.

The court granted the defendant's application, finding the previous statements significantly probative to the charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court partially granted the Crown's application, admitting evidence of the bleeding and sexual inactivity, but excluding the complainant's lay opinion that the bleeding was caused by a ruptured hymen and evidence of her virginity due to lack of competence and potential prejudice.

The offender, a 32-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty of assaulting his intimate partner with a knife.

The Crown sought a 90-day conditional sentence and probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence and probation.

The court considered the offender's lack of criminal record, steady employment, mental health struggles, and compliance with bail conditions as mitigating factors.

The court declined to order restitution for the victim's treatment costs, finding insufficient evidence that the offence caused the claimed PTSD.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant, charged with historical sexual offences against his daughter, applied under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of a statement the complainant made to a roommate about being sexually abused by a peer.

The defendant argued the statement was relevant to show animus and as a prior inconsistent statement.

The court found the statement had no probative value as a prior inconsistent statement but had significant probative value as evidence of animus towards the defendant, providing a potential motive to fabricate.

The court concluded that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice and allowed the application to cross-examine the complainant on the statement for the limited purpose of demonstrating animus.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(1) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify via CCTV from outside the courtroom.

The complainant, who alleged sexual offences by the accused, suffered from Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and experienced severe anxiety when testifying in the visual presence of the accused.

The court found that the Crown established on a balance of probabilities that the complainant may have difficulty communicating her evidence due to a mental disability.

The application was granted.

On a pre-trial Charter application, the accused sought exclusion of police photographs of text messages taken from the complainant's phone with her consent.

The court held that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in texts exchanged during the parties' romantic relationship, but not in texts exchanged after the relationship ended in which the complainant accused him of rape.

Photographing the relationship texts constituted at least a search, and the complainant's consent could not authorize a third-party waiver of the accused's s. 8 rights, making the warrantless search unreasonable.

Applying s. 24(2), the court declined to exclude the evidence because the police conduct was inadvertent, the privacy impact was minimal given the complainant could testify to the texts, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits was high.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after encouraging her co-accused to attack the victim, who subsequently died from a stab wound.

The court found the offender's active role in instigating the confrontation and her failure to render assistance to be significant aggravating factors.

After weighing the mitigating factors, including her guilty plea and lack of a significant criminal record, the court imposed a sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving approximately 38 months to serve.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences following the execution of a search warrant at a basement apartment.

The police found the accused attempting to escape through a bedroom window, outside of which they located a jacket containing a loaded handgun.

Inside the bedroom, police found fentanyl, cocaine, cash, digital scales, and cell phones.

The court found the circumstantial evidence, including text messages, photos, and the accused's exclusive occupation of the bedroom, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of the loaded handgun and possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

The accused, facing charges including possession of a loaded handgun and fentanyl for trafficking, brought an application for disclosure of occurrence reports related to two residences and three individuals (Cassandra Puskas, Sean Collins, and Tyrone Lothian).

The Crown opposed the request, arguing it was a fishing expedition, untimely, or required a different disclosure application type.

The court largely granted the accused's disclosure application, finding the information relevant for potential witness credibility or an alternate suspect defence, and that it fell under the Crown's first-party disclosure obligations as "obviously relevant" information.

Stephanie Slack pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl.

The Crown sought a provincial custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence based on the defendant's significant rehabilitation.

The court, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for fentanyl trafficking but also considering rehabilitation, determined that a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by two years probation, was appropriate.

The judge found that a conditional sentence, with sufficiently punitive conditions, could achieve the sentencing objectives without hindering the defendant's progress in recovery and employment, even if exceptional circumstances were not strictly required.

The defendant, Mr. Edwards, applied for leave to cross-examine affiants and challenged a search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched residence.

The court considered factors for establishing a privacy interest, including presence, control, ownership, historical use, and ability to regulate access.

While the defendant relied on the Crown's theory, the court found that the objective evidentiary basis did not support a reasonable expectation of privacy, concluding that the defendant was merely a temporary house guest.

Consequently, Mr. Edwards lacked standing to challenge the warrant, and his application was dismissed.

In a pre-trial application in a sexual offence prosecution involving allegations by the accused's biological daughter, the Crown sought leave to adduce similar fact evidence from two other complainants alleging prior intrafamilial sexual abuse.

Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court held there was no air of reality to alleged collusion or contamination among the witnesses.

The court found the proposed evidence had insufficient probative value on mens rea, context, and rebuttal of fabrication, but was highly probative on actus reus because of the unusual and aberrant nature of the alleged conduct and the significant similarities among the allegations.

The probative value on that issue outweighed the substantial prejudicial effect, and the evidence was admitted.

In a judge-alone sexual assault trial arising from a sexual encounter that began consensually, the central issue was whether the accused struck the complainant mid-encounter, thereby vitiating consent to subsequent sexual activity under s. 265(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court treated the matter as a credibility case, applied the W. (D.) framework, and found significant implausibilities and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, while also identifying limitations in the accused's evidence.

The medical evidence and post-incident text message were held not to materially corroborate the complainant's account.

Considering the evidence as a whole, the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt, and the Crown failed to prove absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, assault, and threatening his former intimate partner, an Indigenous woman.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five years, while the defence sought two years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and the impact of the offences, against significant mitigating factors, particularly the offender's Indigenous background (Gladue factors), onerous bail conditions, and strong potential for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of two years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The defendant, Chad Valiquette, applied under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stay charges of assault and sexual assault due to unreasonable delay.

The court analyzed the total delay of 1331 days against the 30-month Jordan ceiling, deducting periods attributed to defence actions (awaiting an appeal decision, Legal Aid issues) and exceptional circumstances (threat to counsel, COVID-19 court suspensions).

The court found that after deductions, the remaining delay was 27.99 months, which is below the Jordan ceiling.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant, Preston Proulx, was accused of sexual assault, forcible confinement, threatening death, and assault against his former girlfriend.

The central issue was credibility, as the complainant and defendant presented vastly different accounts of the events.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, supported by photographic evidence and the defendant's emails containing admissions and demonstrating a tendency to anger and dishonesty.

The defendant was found guilty of all four charges.

The accused was charged with trafficking fentanyl, criminal negligence causing death, and manslaughter following the overdose death of an acquaintance.

In pretrial motions, the Crown sought to admit two police statements, while the defence sought to exclude the statements and text messages found on the deceased's cell phone.

The court found the statements were voluntary and not obtained in breach of s. 10 of the Charter.

However, the court ruled that the warrantless search of the deceased's cell phone at the scene violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

The court excised the text messages from the search warrant information, found the remaining grounds insufficient, and excluded the text message evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Sentencing decision involving guilty pleas to multiple offences including sexual assaults, drug trafficking, assault, and threatening against several young women over an extended period.

The court treated denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, proportionality, victim harm, breach of probation, and youth of certain victims as significant aggravating considerations, while also giving substantial weight to the offender's guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, difficult upbringing, and Gladue factors.

Applying the Gladue and Ipeelee framework, the court found systemic and background factors materially reduced moral blameworthiness but did not eliminate the need for a penitentiary-range sentence.

Enhanced pre-sentence credit beyond 1.5 to 1 was refused.

A global sentence of 72 months less 62 months' credit, leaving 10 further months in custody followed by 12 months' probation, was imposed together with DNA, SOIRA, and no-contact orders.

The defendant, Kayne Robinson, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime (cash over $5,000).

A third charge of cannabis possession was withdrawn.

The Crown's case relied on police observations during a search warrant execution and expert testimony regarding drug dealing practices.

The defence argued that the cocaine was not in Robinson's possession and highlighted inconsistencies in police testimony, a gap in surveillance, and lack of forensic evidence.

The court found Robinson not guilty of the cocaine-related charges due to reasonable doubt arising from the inconsistencies in police evidence and Robinson's credible testimony.

The court also provided guidance on the Superior Court's jurisdiction over summary conviction offences when charged alongside indictable offences, noting that the Superior Court generally lacks jurisdiction for standalone summary offences and that reconstituting as a summary conviction court would be unwise due to potential appellate conflicts.

The accused, J. A. V., was charged with seven sexual offences involving three complainants, all under 16.

The court considered similar fact evidence for most allegations.

The court found the accused guilty on two counts related to M. H. (first and fourth incidents of sexual touching while M. was asleep), and not guilty on the remaining five counts involving B. D. and T. G., as well as the "lounge chair" and "penis stroking" incidents involving M. H., due to reasonable doubt regarding credibility, reliability, and implausibility of the complainants' or accused's evidence.

Submissions were requested for a potential stay on the guilty counts and disposition of two remaining Criminal Code breach counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and attempt to obstruct justice after breaking into a home and repeatedly stabbing three victims who had implicated his brother in a previous crime.

The Crown sought 6 to 8 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 3 to 5 years, citing the offender's Aboriginal background and Gladue principles.

The court emphasized the devastating impact on the victims and the need for public protection, sentencing the offender to 8 years imprisonment less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.