Heather Gunter

A young person (DP), age 15 at the time of the alleged offence, was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code for allegedly penetrating the complainant (ML) anally while she slept during a birthday sleepover.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, two witnesses present at the sleepover, and the accused.

The court found the accused not guilty, concluding that while the complainant appeared credible and genuinely believed the assault occurred, her evidence regarding the critical two-minute window of the alleged offence raised reliability concerns given her extreme intoxication and initial uncertainty.

The accused's evidence, though also raising reliability concerns due to his intoxication and drug use, was sufficiently plausible to create reasonable doubt.

The Crown failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision concerns the sanction for contempt and the allocation of costs following findings that the defendants failed to comply with a court order (the "Turnover Order") in a complex commercial dispute.

The court awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, reduced by 25% due to Charter breaches, and substantial indemnity costs to the defendants for a successful Charter-based stay motion.

The court also addresses the principles of set-off and mutuality of debt in the context of competing costs awards.

This endorsement addresses a contempt motion brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for non-compliance with a prior trial decision, and a cross-motion by the defendants to stay the contempt motion due to alleged Charter breaches by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for several failures to comply with the original order, including withholding records and refusing to execute necessary assignments.

However, the court also found that the plaintiffs committed Charter breaches (failure of timely disclosure and case splitting) in their prosecution of the contempt motion, which curtailed the evidence that could be relied upon.

The stay motion was dismissed, but the scope of contempt findings was limited due to the excluded evidence.

The court ordered the defendants to comply with outstanding obligations within 30 days.

The appellant, Christopher Husbands, appealed the life sentences imposed for two counts of manslaughter and other related offences stemming from a 2012 shooting at the Eaton Centre.

The appeal raised four main categories of error: misapplication of social context evidence (IRCA), incorrect test for PTSD link to conduct, misapplication of delayed parole test and failure to remedy Charter breaches, and demonstrably unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the legal principles, including those related to social context evidence (consistent with Morris), mental disorder as a mitigating factor (consistent with Prioriello and Hilbach), and the two-stage Zinck test for parole eligibility.

The court concluded that the life sentences were not demonstrably unfit, emphasizing the seriousness of the crimes, the profound victim impact, and the paramountcy of general deterrence and denunciation in such cases.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for attempted murder and assault, appealed a DNA order granted by the trial judge under s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the test for imposing a DNA order on an NCR offender and did not err in granting the order based on stereotypical reasoning or speculation, as the conclusions were anchored in evidence.

This is an appeal from convictions for two counts of robbery and one count of forcible confinement.

The appellant argued that the trial judge subjected his evidence to uneven scrutiny, reversing the burden of proof, and failed to adequately assess the elements of forcible confinement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, did not shift the burden of proof, and provided sufficient reasons for the forcible confinement conviction, which was supported by the evidence.