Joshua Clarke

The accused pleaded guilty to mischief over $5,000 by discharging two shotgun rounds into a neighbour's vehicle and possessing firearms without a licence.

The offence occurred when the accused, intoxicated and frustrated by a car alarm disrupting his sleep, fired at his neighbour's F-150 truck.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, a weapons prohibition for ten years, and forfeiture of the shotgun, balancing significant aggravating factors (unlicensed firearms, discharge in a semi-urban setting while intoxicated, substantial property damage) against substantial mitigating factors (guilty plea, cooperation with police, no criminal record, gainful employment, and significant rehabilitative efforts including anger management and substance abuse counselling).

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

The respondent, who has schizophrenia, became agitated during execution of a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act and punched an officer.

The Crown argued the trial judge demonstrated reasonable apprehension of bias through excessive interventions during witness examination, erred in analyzing an alleged Charter section 10(b) breach, and wrongfully took judicial notice.

The appellate court found the trial judge's numerous interjections and cross-examinations from the bench, combined with certain comments suggesting a predetermined position, created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

A new trial was ordered.

A young person, QF, was charged with assault.

The complainant, MH, testified that QF assaulted her after a consensual kiss.

QF denied the incident and presented alibi evidence, including surveillance footage.

The court found QF's testimony incredible due to inconsistencies.

However, despite finding MH's account generally truthful, the court found a reasonable doubt due to "collusion and tainting" between MH and another complainant (ST), as MH admitted her motivation to report was to "back up" ST.

The court also strongly rejected the defence's argument that prior consent to minor touching implied consent to further, non-consensual acts.

Ultimately, QF was acquitted due to reasonable doubt arising from the tainting of the complainant's evidence.

This decision addresses motions in three consolidated construction lien actions.

Sutton Forming Inc. sought a declaration on Homes by DeSantis (Lake) Inc.'s minimum holdback obligation under the Construction Lien Act and an order for payment from it.

The court clarified that the holdback is calculated based on the contract price for services actually supplied, not amounts paid, and rejected the owner's objections regarding certificate accuracy and set-off for deficiencies.

The court granted leave for the motion, declared the minimum holdback, and ordered specific payments to Sutton and its sub-subcontractors from the holdback.

The appellant, Robert Gary Anderson, appealed his conviction for criminal harassment and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conduct regarding the jury charge, an alleged juror falling asleep, or the imposed two-year suspended sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The accused pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner and breach of recognizance.

The court considered the severe nature of the assault, the accused's lack of prior record, his low risk of reoffending, and the impact of stringent pre-sentence bail conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused was sentenced to 90 days of intermittent jail for the assault, followed by a 12-month conditional sentence for the breach, and probation.

C.C., a young person, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, J.M., testified that C.C. touched her buttocks without consent after she verbally protested.

The court applied the principles of consent from R. v. Ewanchuk and R. v. Barton, finding that J.M.'s subsequent "freezing" or passivity did not constitute consent.

The court determined that C.C. did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and was reckless in continuing the sexual touching despite J.M.'s protests.

The Crown proved both the actus reus and mens rea of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

C.C. was found guilty.

The offender was found guilty of historical indecent assault, sexual assault, and buggery against his foster brother, who was a child at the time.

The court found the offender was in a position of trust and abused the victim over a lengthy period.

The court considered the severe impact on the victim, the offender's lack of a criminal record, and his health issues.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 7 years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration, weapons prohibition, and s. 161 prohibition orders.

Historical sexual offence prosecution arising from allegations that the accused sexually abused a vulnerable foster child over many years while occupying a position of trust as an older adult in the foster household.

The court conducted an extensive credibility and reliability assessment of the complainant, supporting witnesses, and defence witnesses, including evidence of delayed disclosure, an alleged inculpatory telephone conversation, and apology emails.

Applying the criminal burden of proof and the W. (D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s evidence, accepted the complainant’s evidence as corroborated in material respects, and found the accused used grooming conduct and his position of authority to commit repeated sexual acts.

Convictions were entered on counts of indecent assault, sexual assault, and buggery.

The applicant, Denis Guindon, facing charges of indecent assault and buggery, brought a pre-trial motion to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity and records from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The court denied the admissibility of evidence regarding the complainant's other sexual activity, finding it was intended to impugn credibility, which is prohibited under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court allowed the use of Board records to cross-examine the complainant on inconsistencies regarding the timing of allegations against the accused and specific details of the alleged assaults by the accused, as these were deemed relevant to credibility and the accused's right to make a full answer and defence, with their probative value outweighing any prejudice.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault against his common-law partner and four other women, as well as assault and mischief.

The accused raised the defence of non-insane automatism (sexsomnia), arguing he was in a parasomnic state during the incidents.

The court rejected the sexsomnia defence, finding the accused's actions were voluntary, goal-directed, and often influenced by alcohol intoxication rather than a sleep disorder.

The accused was found guilty of the sexual assaults but acquitted of the assault and mischief charges.

A 16-year-old resident of a group home was charged with five offences: killing a rabbit kept for a lawful purpose, causing unnecessary injury to the rabbit, destroying property by killing the rabbit, breaching a bail undertaking, and uttering a threat to cause death.

The defendant claimed he killed the rabbit out of necessity because it was freezing and staff would not allow him to bring it inside.

The court rejected the necessity defence, finding no air of reality to the claim that the defendant had no reasonable legal alternatives.

The court found the defendant's evidence evasive and incredible, noting his behaviour was consistent with rage over being denied food rather than concern for the animal.

The defendant was found guilty of four counts and acquitted of the death threat charge due to reasonable doubt.

The accused, C.R., was sentenced after being convicted of 10 counts of abuse against four of his children, including aggravated assault (tattooing), assault with a weapon (knife), assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and simple assault.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, C.R.'s personal circumstances, and aggravating and mitigating factors, with primary consideration given to denunciation and deterrence as mandated for offences against children.

The Crown sought 6-7 years incarceration, while the defence sought 2-2.5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years incarceration, crediting 35 days for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 3 years and 330 days in a penitentiary.

The sentence was broken down into concurrent and consecutive terms for the various counts.

The defendant was charged with wilfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances in connection with her entitlement to benefits within 10 days after the change occurred, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The defendant had been receiving benefits for work-related back injuries and depression since 2007.

The prosecution presented surveillance evidence showing the defendant engaging in numerous independent activities (driving, shopping, attending events) during June 1-6, 2011, which contradicted her reported condition of severe pain and limited mobility.

The court found that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence, rejecting the defendant's arguments regarding language barriers and medication effects.

The defendant was convicted.

On a voir dire in a prosecution involving allegations of voyeurism and child pornography relating to the surreptitious filming of a minor in her bedroom, the accused challenged the admissibility of his statement and evidence obtained from a video camera and a household computer.

The defence argued that the statement was involuntary and that multiple Charter breaches occurred under ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), including alleged inducement, improper detention, and unlawful searches and seizures.

The court found the statement voluntary under the framework in R v Oickle and concluded the accused had been properly informed of his rights and given an opportunity to consult counsel.

It further held that the initial cursory examination of the camera and its seizure were justified as part of confirming the offence and as incident to arrest, that the computer was seized with valid consent from residents of the home, and that subsequent searches were authorized by valid warrants.

The court determined that no Charter breaches occurred and ruled that the evidence and statement were admissible at trial.