Heidi Mitchell

The accused was charged with 14 counts of sexual offences and assault involving three complainants: his biological daughter M.B., his stepdaughter R.B., and a childhood friend of M.B., S.C. The trial involved allegations spanning from 2007 to 2020.

The court found the accused guilty on 10 counts involving M.B. and R.B., including sexual interference, sexual assault, incest, invitation to sexual touching, assault, and uttering threats.

The court acquitted the accused on 4 counts involving S.C., finding irreconcilable inconsistencies between the evidence of S.C. and M.B. regarding the incidents alleged.

The court found M.B. to be credible and reliable on the allegations involving M.B. and R.B., but found the contradictions between S.C. and M.B.'s accounts of the incidents involving S.C. to be material and unresolvable, preventing the Crown from meeting the beyond reasonable doubt standard on those counts.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence from multiple complainants in a sexual assault trial involving charges against the accused relating to his biological daughter, stepdaughter, and a childhood acquaintance.

The Crown sought to have evidence from two complainants admitted across all counts on the indictment, arguing high probative value regarding actus reus, rebuttal of implausibility, motive to fabricate, and negation of innocent association defences.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the facts were strikingly dissimilar and that prejudicial effect outweighed probative value.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the alleged facts did not meet the threshold for similar fact evidence and that each offence must be considered separately.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion to be allowed to sit at counsel table during his trial instead of in the prisoner's dock.

He argued that sitting in the dock undermines the presumption of innocence and fair trial rights, citing the Guy Paul Morin inquiry report and potential prejudice as an Indigenous person.

The Crown argued for the customary placement in the dock for visibility and jury observation, suggesting a jury instruction could mitigate prejudice.

The court, balancing fair trial rights, communication needs, and the absence of security concerns, granted the application, allowing the accused to sit at counsel table.

The accused was charged with assault and sexual assault against his wife.

The complainant alleged multiple instances of physical abuse and non-consensual anal and vaginal sex.

The accused denied the physical assaults and testified that the sexual encounters were consensual or stopped immediately upon the complainant expressing pain or lack of consent.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be deeply flawed due to inconsistencies, minimization of her role in the toxic marriage, and delayed disclosure.

Conversely, the accused's evidence was credible and unshaken.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to recklessly causing damage by fire to occupied property and participating in a riot while covering his face, arising from a January 27, 2019 incident at the Algoma Treatment and Remand Centre.

The riot resulted in approximately $50,000 in damages.

The court imposed a sentence of 17 months incarceration followed by two years probation, with a 30-day reduction for lockdown and COVID-19 conditions.

The court rejected the defence's requests for enhanced pre-sentence custody credits for collateral consequences, Duncan credits for lockdowns, and additional COVID-19 credits, finding the sentence already at the low end of the appropriate range.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault following a five-day trial.

The Crown sought an 18-month custodial sentence followed by probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with house arrest for the first 270 days, followed by graduated curfew conditions, probation for 18 months, mandatory DNA order, SOIRA registration for 10 years, and completion of the Sexual Offender Relapse Prevention-I program.

The court found that while denunciation and deterrence remain primary objectives for sexual assault, a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender's youth, first-time offender status, lack of aggravating features such as violence or threats, and the need to reduce reliance on incarceration.

The appellant appealed his impaired driving conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application.

The central issue at trial was the arresting officer's credibility regarding whether he had an Approved Screening Device (ASD) in his cruiser, as he had failed to make notes about it.

After conviction, the officer's notes were disclosed, revealing he had taken inventory of his cruiser's backseat but omitted the ASD.

The appeal court applied the Dixon test and found that the undisclosed notes were highly material and raised a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different, as they directly impacted the officer's credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused, charged under a 13-count indictment, brought an application for the disclosure of unredacted police notes and source documents.

The Crown resisted the application, claiming the redacted information was protected by confidential informant privilege.

Following an in camera Basi hearing, the court found that the individual who provided the information had an expectation of confidentiality and was a confidential informant, not a police agent.

The court scheduled a further in camera hearing to review the unredacted material to determine if any portions could be disclosed to the defence.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred on June 26 and June 27, 2017.

The complainant and accused met through an online dating website and spent a night together at the accused's home.

The case involved a "he said/she said" credibility assessment.

The court found the accused not guilty on the first count (hot tub incident on June 26) but guilty on the second count (midnight sexual encounter and shower incident on June 27).

The court emphasized that consent must be affirmatively communicated and must apply to each specific sexual activity at the time it occurs.

The accused failed to take any steps to ascertain the complainant's consent.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit a witness to testify by closed-circuit video from British Columbia.

The application was brought on the eve of trial without prior notice, contrary to the pre-trial endorsement.

The court denied leave to bring the late application, citing trial fairness and the importance of adhering to pre-trial timelines.

In the alternative, the court held that even if leave were granted, the substantive application would be dismissed because the Crown failed to establish that video testimony was appropriate in the circumstances, relying solely on hearsay evidence and cost considerations.

This criminal trial involved 16 counts against the accused, Gary Joseph Levar, including various assault-related charges and a breach of recognizance.

The court heard evidence over nine days, focusing heavily on witness credibility, particularly given the extensive drug use by the complainant, the accused, and other key witnesses during the alleged events.

Forensic evidence, including toxicology and DNA analysis, was also presented.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) regarding reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the court found the evidence of the complainant to be unreliable due to drug intoxication and periods of unconsciousness, and found that the testimony of defence witnesses, particularly Vanessa McKinnon, raised reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on 14 of the 16 counts, including all serious assault charges, and Count 2 was dismissed at the Crown's request.

The accused was convicted only on Count 16, a breach of recognizance, and sentenced to 60 days incarceration with credit for pre-trial custody.

The accused, Johnathan Townsend, brought an application under section 8 of the Charter to exclude computer evidence, specifically Skype chat logs and internet searches, in his first-degree murder trial.

The court found that the police search of the computer breached Townsend's Charter rights due to insufficient judicial authorization regarding the scope and timing of the data analysis.

However, applying the R. v. Grant test, the court determined that the evidence should not be excluded, citing the technical nature of the breach, the good faith of the police, the principled search methodology, and the overwhelming societal interest in the highly probative and essential evidence for the first-degree murder prosecution.

The Crown brought a motion for a finding that the accused's video statement to police was voluntary and admissible.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to a lack of operating mind, inducements/trickery related to his parents, and the cumulative effect of these factors.

The court found the statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, concluding that police conduct did not amount to trickery or inducement, and the accused possessed an operating mind, demonstrating nuanced decision-making despite his Asperger's condition and recent psychiatric care.

The statement was deemed admissible for the upcoming trial.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of his section 11(b) Charter rights to be tried within a reasonable time.

The charges included assault, unlawful confinement, and three breaches of a probation order, arising from events on December 14, 2014.

The accused appeared in court 28 times over approximately 23 months, with four separate trial dates set.

The first trial date was adjourned due to insufficient time; the second was not reached because the Crown proceeded with an in-custody matter; the third was adjourned due to the complainant's scheduled caesarean section; and the fourth trial date was set for November 10, 2016.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan and found that the total delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Provincial Court matters.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.