Jennifer Nancy Lofft

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault, one count of choking, one count of assault, and one count of criminal harassment.

The trial judge found the accused's evidence fundamentally unreliable and tainted by fantasy or insincerity, while the complainant's and her mother's evidence was found honest and sincere.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault (two counts), assault, and criminal harassment, but not guilty of choking.

The court rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent for sexual assault, finding the accused took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault, assault with a weapon, and being unlawfully in a dwelling house following an incident on June 25, 2015, where he broke into his former partner's apartment and attacked her and her boyfriend with his fists and a knife.

The Crown sought 90 days custody plus two years probation; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed 30 days intermittent custody followed by two years probation, emphasizing that despite the offender's remorse, successful completion of counselling, and lack of prior record, the principles of general deterrence and denunciation required a custodial sentence for domestic violence offences.

The accused, a graduate student at York University, was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant, also a graduate student, alleged that after an evening of drinking at two bars with mutual friends, the accused sexually assaulted her at his apartment without her consent.

The accused's defence was that the sexual activity was consensual, characterizing the complainant as the sexual aggressor throughout the evening.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence as incredible and unbelievable, finding it inconsistent with the probabilities and the complainant's credible testimony.

The judge found that the accused, motivated by anger and a desire for control after the complainant's friend declined to join them for a threesome, took advantage of the intoxicated and vulnerable complainant.

The judge convicted the accused of sexual assault, emphasizing that consent requires affirmative communication and that the absence of physical resistance does not constitute consent.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his wife and causing bodily harm on July 20, 2013.

The incident arose from a dispute over whether the defendant should take their seven-year-old son to a Muay Thai class.

The case turned on credibility and reliability of the complainant and defendant's accounts of the altercation.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting that the complainant initiated physical contact by punching him repeatedly in the head and eye while he was kneeling in front of her on the couch, and that he hit her twice to make her stop.

He further claimed that when she later swung a picture frame at him, he pushed her away in self-defence, causing her to fall accidentally.

The complainant's evidence was marked by significant memory gaps, including periods of unconsciousness, and contradictions between her trial testimony and her earlier statement to police.

The court found the defendant's evidence more credible and coherent despite some concerns about his testimony, and acquitted him.

The defendant was charged with assault following an incident in a Toronto apartment.

Three independent witnesses observed from across the street what they described as the defendant repeatedly striking the complainant about the face and head.

The defendant and complainant testified that the incident involved only a heated verbal argument that escalated into brief physical contact, with the complainant pushing the defendant and the defendant restraining her without striking her.

The court resolved the credibility conflict by finding the three rooftop witnesses credible and reliable, concluding that their contextual remove from the parties enhanced rather than prejudiced their reliability.

The defendant was found guilty of assault, with the court rejecting any defence of self-defence as the force used was objectively excessive.

This is a voir dire concerning the competency and qualifications of a Tigrinya language interpreter proffered by the Crown.

The defendant challenged the interpreter's qualifications despite his passing grade on the Ministry of the Attorney General interpretation test, arguing for an inherent error factor of approximately 30%.

The court rejected this argument, finding that mathematical precision is not required in interpretation and that the interpreter met the constitutional standard under the Charter.

The court held that interpretation is an inherently human endeavour that does not require perfection, and that the interpreter was competent to provide services during trial.