Johnathan Heath Bilton

The defendant, charged with aggravated assault, sought a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The total delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an exceptional circumstance, justifying the subtraction of a period of delay.

However, the court found that the primary cause of the delay was the state's failure to provide timely and complete disclosure, not the pandemic.

Following the principles from R. v. Silva and R. v. Ravikumaran, the court determined that the Crown failed to demonstrate that the delay was caused by COVID-19 or that it took reasonable steps to mitigate the disclosure issues.

Consequently, the court refused to subtract the pandemic period from the delay calculation and stayed the proceedings.

The defendant was charged with uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, possessing a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and breaching a probation order.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all three counts.

The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The defendant was found guilty of all three offences based on the totality of the evidence, including the specific nature of the threat, the defendant's proximity to the victim's residence, his possession of a knife shortly after the incident, and the unique identifying characteristics (name "Peter" with mother "Rebecca") that connected him to the perpetrator.

A thirteen-year-old accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code against a twelve-year-old complainant, his cousin.

The Crown alleged the accused forcibly engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse with the complainant without consent.

The accused claimed the sexual activity was consensual, relying on a purported Facebook message from the complainant.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the accused's account, finding the sexual activity was performed under duress and without consent.

The judge convicted the accused, noting the accused's consumption of marijuana, evasiveness regarding timing, and inability to explain details of the incident.

The judge also considered Gladue factors affecting the complainant's credibility and circumstances.

The court imposed sentences on two Aboriginal defendants following their guilty pleas to assault causing bodily harm.

Garrett Skead received 13 months incarceration (60 days additional after 11 months pre-trial custody credit) plus two years probation.

Bradley Jack received 15 months incarceration (7 months additional after 8 months custody credit) plus two years probation.

Both received concurrent 30-day sentences on breach charges.

The sentencing was informed by extensive Gladue reports and the judge's detailed consideration of the historical context of Aboriginal marginalization and the residential school system's impact on the defendants' community.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and failure to comply with an undertaking.

The Crown alleged that the accused punched the complainant in the face, causing serious injuries including a transected pancreas, splenectomy, and complex facial fractures requiring surgical intervention.

The accused made admissions via Facebook to the complainant's mother that he was responsible for the assault.

The defence argued that the extensive injuries could not have resulted from a single punch and that the Crown failed to establish causation.

The court found the Crown had not proven causation for the aggravated assault charge but convicted the accused of simple assault based on the admitted punch to the face.