G. Verbeem

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a social gathering.

The complainant testified that the accused forced himself upon her and penetrated her despite her repeated refusals.

The accused claimed the sexual activity was consensual.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, rejected the accused's evidence, and found the complainant's testimony compelling and corroborated by DNA evidence, physical injuries, and post-offence conduct.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault against his six-month-old daughter, who presented at the hospital with severe, life-threatening injuries including a liver laceration and a bowel obstruction.

The accused claimed the injuries were accidental, resulting from him dropping and catching the infant.

The Crown alleged the injuries were caused by intentional blunt force trauma, specifically squeezing.

The court rejected the accused's accidental explanation, relying on medical evidence that the injuries were inconsistent with a drop/catch, and accepted the mother's evidence that the accused confessed to squeezing the infant in anger.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and refusing to provide a breath sample following a single-vehicle collision where his passenger was seriously injured.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired driving causing bodily harm, rejecting his evidence that the passenger grabbed the steering wheel.

However, the court acquitted the accused of refusing to provide a breath sample, finding that his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was infringed due to a delay in facilitating contact and a failure to provide a second consultation when he was confused about the legal advice received.

The evidence of his refusal was excluded under s. 24(2).