Jaki Freeman

The accused, a teacher, was charged with assault with a weapon.

The defence brought a third-party records application seeking disclosure of school records and police records relating to the complainant's history of violent or aggressive conduct and credibility issues.

The court applied the two-stage O'Connor test to determine disclosability.

At stage one, the court found the records likely relevant to the defence of self-defence.

At stage two, the court balanced the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests.

The court ordered disclosure of school records documenting violent disposition and misconduct from age 12 onwards, and police occurrence reports meeting the criteria under section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Strict conditions were imposed on the use and retention of disclosed materials.

The accused was convicted of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of a 14-year-old complainant over a three-month period in 2016.

The offences involved multiple instances of sexual touching, both over and under clothing, occurring in the accused's motor vehicle.

A count of sexual assault was conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 18 months custody (12 months for sexual interference, 6 months for invitation to sexual touching, consecutive), while the defence sought 90 days concurrent, served intermittently.

The court imposed a 9-month concurrent custodial sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence given the youth of the victim, breach of trust, multiple occurrences, and significant impact on the complainant.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a roadside stop at an LCBO plaza.

The defence sought exclusion of breathalyzer results on grounds that the accused, whose first language was Punjabi, was not provided with rights to counsel and breath demand in his language until arrival at the police station, and that he was not given the opportunity to contact counsel of choice.

The court found no breach of Charter rights.

Although there were language difficulties at the roadside, the officer appropriately sought assistance from a Punjabi-speaking officer.

The breath demand was provided as soon as practicable given the language barrier.

The accused was informed of his right to counsel of choice but did not indicate he wished to contact private counsel.

The breathalyzer results were admitted and the accused was found guilty.