J. McKay

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to vacate a detention order made by a Justice of the Peace following alleged breaches of a prior release.

The accused argued the Justice of the Peace erred in law regarding the presumption of innocence and that the detention was clearly inappropriate.

The Superior Court found no error of law but concluded the detention was clearly inappropriate because the Justice of the Peace gave insufficient weight to the accused's proposed release plan.

The plan to reside in a supportive housing facility in a different city, combined with the remote fly-in nature of the victim's community, adequately addressed secondary ground concerns.

The detention order was vacated and the accused was released on strict conditions.

Following conviction for assault with a weapon and guilty pleas to common assault and breach of undertaking, the court sentenced an Aboriginal offender from Pikangikum First Nation to a global custodial sentence with probation.

The sentencing decision extensively applied Gladue principles, considering the offender's background of family trauma, substance abuse, and systemic disadvantage within an isolated First Nation community.

The court imposed a sentence of nine months pre-sentence custody credited plus six months additional imprisonment for the assault with a weapon, three months consecutive for common assault, and one month consecutive for breach of undertaking, followed by three years probation.

The decision emphasizes that while Gladue factors do not provide automatic sentence reductions, they require a different analytical approach and consideration of restorative justice alternatives.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault involving a young child.

The conviction had been based on circumstantial evidence that the accused had placed his arm under a blanket where the child was sleeping and the child awoke startled, asking what he was doing.

The appellate court applied the unreasonable verdict test and held that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that any touching was intentional or sexual in nature.

The circumstances were equally consistent with the accused, who was intoxicated, entering a dark bedroom to find a place to sleep and inadvertently touching the child.

The court concluded the inference of sexual assault was not the only reasonable inference available on the evidence and allowed the appeal.

The accused were charged with possession of property obtained by crime exceeding $5,000 and related curfew breaches following a break and enter at a lumber store.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on the testimony of an accomplice who admitted he initially lied to police and later implicated the accused after negotiating a plea deal in exchange for a discharge.

Applying the principles underlying a Vetrovec warning, the court treated the accomplice as an unsavoury and unreliable witness whose evidence required careful scrutiny.

The alleged confirmatory evidence, including a stolen cheque found in a van and evidence of a phone call requesting use of the van, was found insufficient to independently confirm the witness’s account of the accused’s involvement.

The Crown therefore failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.