Hilton Tse

Jared Burke was charged with multiple offences including possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, carrying a concealed weapon, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault following a violent altercation at a convenience store.

The court found that Burke's initial possession of a knife for self-defence was not a valid defence for the weapon charges, as the situation was avoidable.

He was found guilty of possession of a dangerous weapon, carrying a concealed weapon, and assault (but not assault with a weapon).

For the aggravated assault charge, the court accepted Burke's defence of his brother, finding his actions reasonable given the immediate lethal threat.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his guilty pleas to three counts of assault, one count of assault with a weapon, and two counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The accused had engaged in a pattern of predatory behaviour targeting women in apartment buildings, including physical assaults and an incident involving a pellet gun.

The defence conceded the accused met the criteria for long-term offender designation but opposed the dangerous offender designation.

The court found that while the accused presented a serious clinical challenge with paraphilic coercive disorder and schizophrenia, he did not pose a "tremendous future risk" as required for dangerous offender designation.

The court designated the accused as a long-term offender, imposed a two-year custodial sentence, and ordered a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of a minor cousin, invitation to sexual touching, and uttering threats.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony regarding an alleged assault occurring between November 17-21, 2016.

The accused provided an alibi defence, testifying he was at a friend's residence during the entire specified period.

The critical issue became the date of the alleged offence.

The complainant's evidence, while credible on the substance of the allegations, established that any assault could not have occurred on the dates specified in the information.

The court found that although the date of an offence is generally not material, it became critical when the accused raised an alibi defence.

The Crown failed to prove the offence occurred within the timeframe alleged, and no amendment to the information was sought.

The charges were dismissed.