3 total
The accused was convicted of arson and breach of probation based on circumstantial evidence excluding any other rational inference.
The accused was charged with arson for deliberately setting fires at his family home on December 25, 2014, and with breaching a probation order.
The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's bizarre destructive behavior earlier that morning, his presence in the vicinity of the home shortly before the fire was discovered, his possession of a lighter, and the absence of signs of forced entry.
The defense argued that the circumstantial evidence could not exclude the reasonable possibility that an intruder had set the fires.
The court found that the accused's pattern of destructive conduct throughout the day, combined with the unlikelihood of a random arsonist targeting the home on Christmas Day, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.
A youth was acquitted of armed robbery charges due to tainted identification evidence and a plausible independent reason for fleeing police.
A youth was charged with robbery and firearms offences arising from an attempted armed robbery of a drug dealer.
The Crown's case relied primarily on identification evidence, alleging that the accused posed as his cousin to set up the drug transaction and then participated in the robbery.
The accused testified that he was at his cousin's house playing video games, fled when he heard police were coming due to breaching his bail conditions, and hid under a deck where he was arrested.
The court found that while the accused's credibility was questionable, the identification evidence was significantly tainted by the accused's prior viewing of arrest photos in his own disclosure package.
The court also found that the accused had an independent reason to flee and hide from police unrelated to the robbery, and that it was plausible the accused's cousin, not the accused, was the person who participated in the robbery.
The court dismissed the defendant's Charter applications and convicted her of impaired driving and over 80.
The defendant was charged with impaired driving and having a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit following a motor vehicle accident.
The defendant sought to exclude her statements to police and breath test results on the grounds that her right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter was violated and that her statements were involuntary.
The court conducted a blended hearing on the Charter and voluntariness voir dire issues.
The court found that the defendant's section 10(b) rights were not violated, her statements were voluntary, and the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant was found guilty of both offences.
