Harutyun Apel

The accused, an employer in his 60s, was charged with three counts of sexual assault against a vulnerable 29-year-old female employee with a learning disability.

The employee was placed in the position through a supported employment program.

The Crown alleged three separate incidents of unwanted sexual touching in the workplace on December 1, 2011.

The accused claimed consent and raised a defence of mistaken belief in consent.

The court found that the accused was in a position of trust, power, and authority over the complainant, rendering any purported consent invalid.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as fabricated and accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on breath test results obtained using an Intoxilyzer 8000C.

The defence challenged the reliability of the breath tests by cross-examining the qualified technician extensively regarding deviations from manufacturer protocols, including failure to visually monitor the instrument during diagnostic checks, uncertainty regarding simulator identification, and temperature recording discrepancies.

The defence sought to rebut the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(c) by establishing the instrument was operated improperly.

The court found that without expert toxicological evidence to establish the significance of the alleged procedural deviations, a reasonable doubt could not be raised regarding proper operation of the instrument.

The accused was convicted and sentenced to a $1,100 fine and one-year driving prohibition.

The appellant appealed convictions for care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit under the Criminal Code.

He was found asleep in the driver’s seat of his parked vehicle with the keys in the ignition after a night of drinking and argued that he had no intention of driving and had planned to obtain a ride home.

The trial judge found that although the presumption of care or control had been rebutted and there was no risk of accidental movement, there remained a real risk that the appellant might change his mind and drive while still impaired.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge’s inference of a realistic risk of a change of mind was supported by circumstantial evidence including the appellant’s level of impairment, inconsistent plans, and access to the vehicle’s controls.

The appellate court further found no error in the application of the burden of proof under W.D. and concluded that the trial judge’s reasons were adequate.

The offender was convicted of three counts of fraud over $5,000 after defrauding three individuals of $139,000 through a fake investment scheme.

The Crown sought 21 to 36 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender posed no danger to the community.

After applying 10 months of credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, the court imposed a 13-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation, along with a restitution order for the full amount defrauded.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily, making the maximum sentence 18 months imprisonment with a minimum of 14 days.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the accused's youthful age (19), lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, engagement in counselling, relatively small collection of images (28 unique pictures), and absence of distribution or evidence of pedophilia.

The Crown sought 12 months imprisonment, while the defence sought an intermittent sentence of 14-90 days.

The court imposed 90 days intermittent imprisonment followed by 3 years probation with conditions including psychiatric assessment.

The accused was charged with four counts of fraud over $5,000.

He represented himself as a wealthy, successful business person with influential connections to induce three individuals to invest money in an upcoming IPO for Interactive Brokers.

The accused did not invest the funds as promised and the victims lost their money.

The court found the accused guilty on three counts of fraud, concluding he made deceitful and false statements to obtain the funds.

The accused was found not guilty on the fourth count involving a school board, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the scoreboard in question did not exist.