Josh McKay

The accused, Arthur R.C. Rule, pleaded guilty to accessing and possessing child pornography.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 18 to 24 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence, arguing extraordinary personal and medical circumstances and bringing a constitutional challenge to the sentencing provisions.

The court reviewed the extensive collection of child pornography, the accused's background, medical conditions, and the impact on victims.

Applying the principles of sentencing and recent jurisprudence, particularly R. v. Friesen, the court found that a conditional sentence was not available and would offend the proportionality principle.

A custodial sentence of 22 months was imposed, followed by a 3-year probation order with strict conditions, including internet monitoring and restrictions on contact with minors.

The accused was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old victim.

The assault occurred in the early morning hours when the victim was asleep and naked in her home on a rural property.

The accused, who was the victim's step-uncle, touched the victim's breast and vagina without consent.

The victim pushed him away and he left.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 6 to 9 months imprisonment plus probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or alternatively 60 to 90 days intermittent custody.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 9 months followed by 24 months probation, finding that the assault fell within the mid-range of sexual assaults and involved significant aggravating factors including the victim's age, breach of trust, and substantial impact on the victim.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of a 17-year-old complainant on December 17, 2014.

The Crown alleged that the accused attended the complainant's residence in the early morning hours and sexually assaulted her by touching her breast and vagina without consent.

The accused denied the allegations entirely.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility and found the accused's testimony unreliable due to material inconsistencies with his police statement and implausible explanations for DNA evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and found that the accused had both motive and opportunity to commit the offence.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

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.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual interference under s. 151 of the Criminal Code arising from a video recording showing an embrace and kiss between the accused and an underage complainant.

The trial judge rejected defences of mistaken belief in age, non‑sexual conduct, and lack of identity.

On appeal, the court held the trial judge made no error regarding the mistaken belief defence or identification evidence, but erred in law in concluding that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the kiss was of a sexual nature.

Applying the objective test in R. v. Chase, the court held the interaction could reasonably be interpreted as a non‑sexual greeting in the circumstances.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The Crown prosecuted the defendant for operating a motor vehicle while prohibited under section 259 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was prohibited from driving "on any street, road, highway or other public place" following a previous drinking and driving conviction.

The defendant argued that Airport Road in Pikangikum First Nation, an Indian Reserve, was not a public road and therefore the prohibition did not apply.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the prohibition applies to roads within the reserve where members of the public are exposed to risk from impaired drivers.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor boat while impaired by alcohol.

The defendant admitted to being impaired but denied being in care and control of the vessel.

The Crown's case rested on evidence that the defendant untied both the bowline and stern line of the boat, pushed it away from the dock, and jumped in while intoxicated.

The defendant claimed he only untied the bowline to address a fender issue and was merely searching for his jacket and a spare fender.

The court found the defendant guilty, accepting the arresting officer's credible testimony over the defendant's account and finding that the defendant's actions created a realistic risk of danger as required under the test established in R. v. Boudreault.