Jacob Legault

Jean Roy pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation after an unprovoked, drunken stabbing of a neighbor, Stephen Penney, who sustained permanent physical and psychological injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the premeditated nature of the attack, the severe impact on the victim, and Roy's history of violence and failed attempts at alcohol rehabilitation.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, mental health issues (mild intellectual disability, depressive disorder, PTSD, anti-social personality disorder), and candour with the psychiatrist.

The court sentenced Roy to an equivalent of four years' incarceration, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while applying the principle of restraint for a first penitentiary sentence.

The accused, a former foster mother, was charged with historical sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a former foster child.

The complainant alleged a sexual relationship occurred when he was a teenager living in the accused's care.

The accused testified and denied the allegations, providing plausible explanations for their relationship and interactions.

Applying the W.(D) framework, the court found the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt and noted significant inconsistencies and a lack of detail in the complainant's testimony.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The applicants were charged with drug offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code arising from the alleged sale of fentanyl.

They sought leave to cross-examine the affiant who swore the Information to Obtain in support of a search warrant at a preliminary inquiry.

The court addressed standing issues for one applicant and applied the Dawson/Garofoli framework to determine which proposed cross-examination questions would be permitted.

The court balanced the narrow scope of cross-examination at a preliminary inquiry against the need to protect confidential informer privilege and the requirement for full and frank disclosure by the affiant.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and criminal harassment, arguing the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, misapprehended evidence, and relied on inconsistent testimony from the complainant.

The charges arose from incidents following the separation of the parties, including the appellant cutting off the complainant's vehicle and following her on multiple occasions.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the trial judge's findings were supported by the uncontradicted evidence of the complainant and that the trial judge adequately addressed any minor discrepancies in the testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was tried on seven counts of assault and sexual assault alleged to have occurred against his spouse during their marriage.

The case turned primarily on the credibility of the complainant and the accused, presenting a classic 'he said/she said' scenario.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the trial judge found inconsistencies and reliability issues in the complainant's testimony, and while not fully accepting the accused's denials, was left with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

The appellant was convicted of cruelty to animals after dropping a pet rabbit from a 10th-floor balcony to its death in front of an eight-year-old child.

He appealed his nine-month sentence, arguing it was harsh and excessive, and that the trial judge erred in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was fit, proportionate, and properly prioritized denunciation and deterrence given the appellant's history and lack of insight.