Joseph S. Nadel

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident on October 25, 2010.

The complainant, a 28-year-old woman with mental health conditions, alleged that the accused engaged in sexual intercourse with her without consent after she repeatedly said "no" to his advances.

The accused, a 43-year-old man with schizophrenia, claimed the complainant acquiesced to sexual activity.

The court found the accused guilty, accepting the complainant's evidence that she did not consent and rejecting the accused's testimony as inconsistent with his police admissions.

The judgment provides comprehensive analysis of the actus reus and mens rea elements of sexual assault, including the requirement for affirmative communication of consent and the rejection of the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent based on silence or ambiguous conduct.

An employer in a farming operation was convicted of failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

An employee fell and broke her leg while descending from a transport storage trailer using portable steps that left a 24-inch gap between the top step and the trailer floor.

The employer appealed, arguing that the concept of "adequacy" did not apply to farming operations and that the steps had been used safely for months without incident.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding that the employer failed to provide adequate access and egress to the trailer and that the gap between the steps and trailer floor was self-evidently unsafe.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault following an incident in which the complainant alleged she was forced to perform fellatio on the accused while in his taxi.

The accused's defence was that the complainant had voluntarily offered to perform the act as payment for her cab fare.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and unbelievable, finding it inconsistent with reason and common sense.

Despite various credibility challenges to the complainant's evidence, the court found her testimony credible on the essential issue of lack of consent and convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The accused, a pastor of a Spanish Pentecostal Church in London, Ontario, was charged with withholding material facts during border entry and attempting to aid and abet an undocumented individual to contravene immigration requirements.

The accused claimed duress, alleging that the hidden passenger threatened harm to his family in El Salvador if he did not smuggle him into Canada.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, holding that the alleged threat of harm to the accused's parents lacked the temporal immediacy required for the duress defence and that the threat was too contingent and remote to constitute immediate harm.

The court also found the accused's account of events improbable and incredible.

The accused was charged with six indictable offences arising from a break and enter at a Beer Store, possession of a stolen pickup truck, dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Crown's case rested primarily on the identification evidence of a police officer who observed the driver of the stolen vehicle during a brief encounter at an intersection in the early morning hours, and subsequently identified the accused from a photograph.

The defence challenged the reliability of this identification evidence and the credibility of a witness who testified to admissions made by the accused regarding involvement in a high-speed police chase.

The trial judge found the identification evidence, though weak when standing alone, was corroborated by the witness's testimony regarding the accused's admissions and evidence connecting the accused to possession of the stolen vehicle.

The court convicted the accused on counts relating to possession of the stolen vehicle, dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg/100mL.

The Crown presented evidence from the arresting officer, transporting officer, qualified technician, and a forensic toxicologist.

The accused's driving exhibited multiple indicators of impairment including speeding, erratic driving, failure to stop for traffic signals and police signals, and physical signs of impairment.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on the totality of the evidence.

The court conditionally stayed the over 80 count due to evidentiary concerns regarding the weight of the accused, which was critical to the toxicologist's retrograde extrapolation calculations.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to attempting to aid and abet a foreign national to misrepresent material facts under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by providing her with a fraudulently used Canadian passport to attempt entry into Canada.

The defendants were detected at the border when the female passenger did not match the photograph in the passport presented.

The court imposed a fine of $5,000 on each defendant, rejecting the Crown's request for six months incarceration.

The court found the defendants fell into the less serious category of offenders, as their crime was motivated by humanitarian concerns rather than financial gain, and was ultimately easily detected.

A youth was sentenced following guilty pleas to two counts of aggravated assault, one count of break and enter with assault, and multiple counts of failing to comply with court orders.

The assaults were racially motivated and occurred on August 1, 2011, against two members of the Verma family.

The youth had been on probation and undertaking release at the time of the offences.

The court imposed an 18-month concurrent sentence on the aggravated assault counts, with credit for 8 months and 15 days of pre-sentence custody on a one-to-one basis, resulting in 9 months and 15 days of further detention (6 months and 10 days in open custody, 3 months and 5 days under community supervision), followed by 18 months of probation.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed by a Justice of the Peace on the respondent for multiple driving-related offences, including six counts of driving while suspended, driving without a valid permit, and failure to surrender insurance.

The Justice of the Peace imposed intermittent sentences totalling approximately 25 days, concurrent probation with a 45-day house arrest condition.

The Crown argued that the house arrest provision constituted an impermissible conditional sentence under the Provincial Offences Act.

The appellate court found that conditional sentences are not available under provincial legislation and that the Justice of the Peace erred in imposing house arrest as a sentencing option.

However, the Crown sought only a declaration on the legal issue and did not seek re-sentencing, as the respondent had substantially completed the sentence.

The appeal was dismissed without re-sentencing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for making an unsafe lane change under the Highway Traffic Act.

On the trial date, the appellant's agent requested an adjournment because the officer's notes provided in disclosure were allegedly illegible, but neither the appellant nor his retained agent attended.

The Justice of the Peace refused the adjournment and proceeded with the trial, finding the appellant guilty based on the victim's evidence.

On appeal, the court held that the Justice of the Peace did not err in refusing the adjournment, noting the lack of prior notice and the presence of witnesses.

The court also found no error in the finding of guilt, as the victim's evidence was clear and uncontradicted.

The appeal was dismissed.