Joseph Alexander Neuberger

The accused, FZ, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against his wife, WLM, involving alleged non-consensual vaginal intercourse on January 5, 2019, and non-consensual touching of her breast on June 6, 2020.

The Crown's case relied solely on the complainant's testimony, while the defence presented the accused's testimony and expert evidence from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Julian Gojer, who opined that FZ exhibited "complex trauma" and a passive, apologetic personality.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be disingenuous and inconsistent with the textual evidence and the accused's psychological profile, which suggested a controlling dynamic where the complainant was the dominant party.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual assaults occurred and consequently dismissed both charges.

This is a sentencing decision for Emmanuel Faria, who pleaded guilty to assault simpliciter.

The victim, SB, who was under 16 at the time of the offence, suffered significant and traumatic impact.

Mr. Faria, a first-time offender, young, and without a criminal record, undertook extensive counselling and psychiatric assessment, showing insight and remorse.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 24-36 months probation and a DNA order, emphasizing the victim's profound impact.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, arguing that a conviction would adversely affect Mr. Faria's future employment and subvert community interests.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 24 months of non-reporting probation, including a term of no contact with the victim, and declined the DNA order, finding it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, consistent with principles for conditional discharges.

Joseph Butera was found guilty of possession of child pornography and arranging through telecommunication to sexually assault a child under the age of 16.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the repeated attempts to have the victim's mother breach trust, instructions for sexual interference, the request for new child pornography images, and the substantial collection of child pornography.

Mitigating factors included his lack of criminal record, early guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in light of R. v. Friesen, the court imposed a global sentence of 45 months, reduced to 38 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and a COVID-19 pandemic multiplier.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, lifetime SOIRA registration, forfeiture of devices, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and various lifetime prohibitions on contact with children and internet use.

The defendant, D.J., was charged with sexually assaulting B.B., his sister-in-law.

The trial involved a s. 276 application to admit prior sexual conduct evidence (an alleged consensual affair between D.J. and B.B. two years prior).

The judge, sitting alone, applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The court found significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding the timing of reporting the assault, the behaviour of her protective dogs during the alleged assault, and her interactions with police.

The evidence of the complainant's sister, R.B., who testified for the defence, was found to be truthful and contradicted key aspects of the complainant's account regarding when the assault was first reported.

The judge concluded that the Crown failed to prove the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

Arian Faroughi, convicted of communicating with persons believed to be underage for sexual purposes, brought an application to stay the charges due to police entrapment and a violation of his section 7 Charter rights.

The applicant argued that police inducement occurred through persistent texting, exploitation of his nervousness, and the use of a phone number previously associated with other escort ads.

The Crown contended there was no inducement and the applicant was a willing participant.

The court found that the police were acting under a bona fide inquiry and did not induce the applicant, applying the objective test from R. v. Mack.

The court determined that an average person in the applicant's position would not have been induced, and the police's oversight regarding the phone number was harmless and not a deliberate act of entrapment.

The section 7 disclosure argument was also dismissed.

The accused was charged with six offences under the Criminal Code related to online child exploitation following his arrest at a hotel in Markham.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that the person he was dealing with was under 16 years of age.

The accused testified that he was confused due to multiple simultaneous conversations, phone technical problems, and message deletions.

The court found the accused's testimony generally not credible but determined that on the whole of the evidence, the accused's explanation that he confused conversations was reasonably possible, leaving a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, forcible confinement, theft, mischief, and uttering a death threat arising from events between February and October 2016 in a domestic relationship.

The trial turned on credibility between the complainant and the accused.

While the court found the complainant generally credible despite some concerns about her truthfulness regarding peripheral matters, it determined that the Crown had not proven most charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of corroboration.

However, the court found the accused guilty of assault (scratching the complainant's neck on October 29-30, 2016) and mischief (breaking the complainant's cell phone at Pacific Mall), as these incidents were corroborated by physical evidence and circumstantial facts.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault against a complainant who alleged that the taxi driver touched her genitals without consent during a cab ride on December 1, 2012.

The complainant was intoxicated and became ill during the ride.

The defendant denied the allegations and testified that he did not touch the complainant at any time.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was credible, her state of intoxication created a reliability gap in her testimony.

The security camera footage did not corroborate the allegations of continuous touching.

The defendant's evidence, while not fully believed, raised a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused, a 62-year-old man, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his granddaughter.

The alleged incident occurred during a family gathering at the complainant's home.

The complainant testified that the accused entered her bedroom at night and placed her hand on his exposed genitals on two occasions.

The accused denied all allegations and testified that he never entered the complainant's bedroom.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including material discrepancies with her prior statements, inconsistencies with corroborating witnesses regarding timing and details, and concerns about potential reinforcement of her testimony through discussions with her parents.

The court also noted the implausibility of the alleged conduct given the crowded household, the presence of multiple adults, the cluttered bedroom layout, and the accused's health limitations.

The accused was acquitted.