Jennifer Lynn Lodge McGill

This case involved Derek Kenney, who was charged with four counts of sexual assault against four adult complainants.

The accused denied the allegations, asserting consensual sexual activity with one complainant and no sexual activity with the others.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), found the complainants' evidence to be compelling and credible, rejecting the defence's arguments of collusion or influence from social media.

The court found the accused guilty on all four counts, concluding that the abrupt termination of relationships and the detailed, consistent accounts of the complainants, including allegations of drugging and coercive behaviour, were more believable than the accused's denials.

The accused, R.N., was charged with aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault against her six-year-old stepson, L.C. The trial involved extensive testimony from L.C., his father, step-sister, classmates, school staff, foster parents, and medical experts.

L.C.'s testimony was inconsistent across multiple interviews and at trial, raising serious concerns about its reliability and credibility.

The step-sister's testimony also changed over time, potentially influenced by an acrimonious custody dispute.

Evidence from L.C.'s classmates suggested he might have been injured at school.

Medical evidence confirmed severe injuries but acknowledged alternative accidental scenarios.

The court found that the Crown had not proven R.N.'s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to the inconsistencies and reliability issues in the key witness testimonies.

The appellant, an Aboriginal offender with three prior drinking and driving convictions, appealed his sentence of 45 days intermittent incarceration and 18 months' probation for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content over 80mg.

He argued the trial judge failed to adequately consider his Aboriginal heritage, overemphasized deterrence, and erred in denying a conditional sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied correct principles, properly considered the Gladue factors, and imposed a sentence that was not clearly excessive given the aggravating circumstances.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault and two related breaches of court orders involving a former intimate partner.

The sentencing court considered the principles in s. 718 and s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code and applied the Gladue framework, taking into account systemic and background factors affecting the offender as an Indigenous person from a remote northern community.

Despite these mitigating considerations, the court emphasized the accused’s significant criminal record, repeated breaches of court orders, and a pattern of violence against the same complainant.

The court concluded that denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the complainant required a custodial sentence.

The accused received a global sentence of six months for assault plus 60 days consecutive for breach of recognizance and 30 days concurrent for breach of probation, with credit for pre‑sentence custody and a two‑year probation order.