Jose Andres Hannah-Suarez

The decision concerns the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal in a criminal case involving convictions for offences arising from an unlawful entry into a dwelling.

The appellant, Gediminas Kevalas, sought to admit medical and related records to support his intoxication defence, arguing that he lacked the requisite mens rea for the offences.

The court found that the fresh evidence was compelling, relevant, and credible, and that its admission was in the interests of justice.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The accused, E.I., was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The forcible confinement charge was withdrawn during the trial.

The central issue was whether the complainant, D.H.-G., consented to the sexual activity.

The court found D.H.-G.'s evidence lacked credibility and reliability due to numerous contradictions and inconsistencies between her trial testimony, police statement, and preliminary inquiry evidence, as well as contradictions from the Crown's supporting witness.

The Crown failed to disprove consent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal for the accused on the sexual assault charge.

Jeremie Naidoo, a court clerk, was charged with two counts of attempting to obstruct justice and one count of breach of trust by a public official after allegedly asking a colleague not to enter his impaired driving charges into the court's tracking system.

The court found that while the actus reus for obstructing justice was established, there was reasonable doubt regarding the mens rea for both charges, particularly concerning his intent to use his public office for personal benefit or to wilfully obstruct justice, given his open discussions with a Crown Attorney.

Consequently, Naidoo was found not guilty on all counts.