Jill Witkin

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the sentence imposed.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of non-consensual anal intercourse with the complainant.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to consider evidence supporting a defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's moans.

The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds of appeal, finding that the evidence did not support the mistaken belief defence, that the trial judge applied consistent standards in assessing credibility, and that any misapprehension of evidence did not affect the conviction.

On sentencing, the Court found one error regarding the characterization of abuse of a spouse or common-law partner, but concluded this did not materially affect the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference involving his daughter when she was between the ages of 3 and 9.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in applying the R. v. W.(D.) test and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, her application of the proper legal test, or the adequacy of her reasons.

The trial judge's findings were entitled to deference, and the pathway to conviction was fully explained in the reasons provided.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching arising from an alleged incident at a childhood pool party.

The defence sought to call a memory expert to challenge the reliability of the complainant’s delayed and partially recovered recollection, but the court excluded that evidence under the Mohan framework because the proposed opinion was unnecessary and intruded on credibility assessment.

Applying the criminal standard and treating peripheral inconsistencies with caution in light of the complainant’s age at the time of the events, the court found the complainant credible and, more importantly, reliable on the core narrative.

The court rejected the suggestion that the memory had been implanted or contaminated by the complainant’s mother and entered convictions on all three counts.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting a young woman (A.Y.) and sentenced to two years less one day.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the trial judge improperly used the complainant's prior consistent statement—an anonymous email sent to police the morning after the alleged assault—as corroboration of her trial testimony.

The trial judge had explicitly stated that the email was "corroboration of her evidence." The Court of Appeal held that while the email was admissible for limited purposes (to rebut the defence theory regarding motive and to assess the complainant's credibility through her conduct), it could not be used as corroboration in the legal sense because it was not from an independent source and could not confirm the veracity of the complainant's testimony unless improperly used for the truth of its contents or by treating consistency as confirmatory.

The court found the trial judge erred in law and allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident on July 18, 2015.

The complainant attended a bar, consumed significant alcohol, and has no memory of events after approximately 2:00 a.m.

Surveillance video evidence established that the complainant became progressively more intoxicated throughout the night.

The Crown argued that the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication.

The defence argued that the complainant's assumption about her lack of consent was unreliable and that the evidence did not establish incapacity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial judge found that while the complainant was severely intoxicated, the evidence established she lacked the cognitive capacity to consent to sexual activity.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against an unconscious victim on July 25, 2014.

The victim, aged 21, met the 46-year-old accused in a bar and agreed to go to his apartment to use cocaine.

She became intoxicated and passed out.

The accused performed oral sex on her without consent while she was unconscious.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence and imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months, emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

A SOIRA order for ten years, three-year probation with no-contact conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The accused was charged with three sexual offences involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The alleged incident occurred in the accused's car in an alley after the complainant and accused had consumed cocaine together.

The complainant testified to sexual contact including digital penetration, attempted kissing, and oral sex.

The accused denied all allegations.

The complainant's aunt, who was present in the home at the time, testified that no conversation about the incident occurred between the accused and herself, contradicting the complainant's account.

The court found the accused not guilty of all charges, citing concerns about the complainant's credibility due to her history of dishonesty and the timing of disclosure, combined with the powerful evidence of the aunt regarding the absence of the alleged McDonald's conversation.

The accused was charged with firearm and robbery offences following an armed robbery of two victims by multiple perpetrators who fled in a black Jeep.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's DNA found on a handgun and a soda can in the abandoned getaway vehicle, cell tower data, and weak photo lineup identifications.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable and the circumstantial evidence open to inferences consistent with innocence, such as secondary DNA transfer.

Concluding the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, the court dismissed the charges and acquitted the accused.