Justice K. Caldwell

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his estranged wife.

The defendant admitted striking his wife three to four times in the face, causing significant injuries including two black eyes and broken nasal bones.

The defendant raised a self-defence claim under Criminal Code section 34, arguing he acted to protect his three-year-old son from imminent harm.

The Crown conceded there was an air of reality to the defence.

The court found that the defendant subjectively believed his son's safety was at risk and that this belief was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, including the complainant's prior threat of self-harm, her volatile behavior that evening, and her deliberate destruction of his clothing.

The court concluded the force used was reasonable in the circumstances and acquitted the defendant.

The accused were jointly charged with offences arising from a gunpoint robbery at a Husky truck stop on Highway 401 near London, Ontario, and a subsequent attempted break-in and stabbing at a car wash near Warden Avenue in Scarborough, Toronto.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the London robbery and the Toronto attempted break-in and assault.

However, the Crown failed to establish the motive for the Toronto incidents as robbery, and therefore the accused were acquitted of the joint robbery charge relating to the car wash owner.

The accused were convicted on most counts but acquitted of the Toronto robbery charge.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused contested the substance of both charges and brought multiple Charter motions challenging the reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand, alleging a change in jeopardy requiring a second consultation with counsel, and arguing the refusal was incomplete due to lack of opportunity to consult counsel.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting an acquaintance following a night out at a club.

The complainant testified that the accused pushed her into a bedroom, forcibly removed her clothing, digitally penetrated her, and attempted to force her to perform oral sex despite her repeated verbal and physical resistance.

The accused provided a contrasting account, claiming the interaction was consensual until he made an offensive comment about her body odour, which caused the complainant to leave.

A key witness testified to observing consensual physical contact between the parties prior to entry into the bedroom, which contradicted the complainant's account of being pushed.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) test and found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt based on the totality of evidence, including credibility concerns about the complainant's testimony regarding alcohol consumption and the corroborating evidence of the third-party witness.

The accused pleaded guilty to six domestic violence offences spanning a two-year period, including assault causing bodily harm, failure to comply with probation and recognizance, threatening bodily harm, criminal harassment, and obstruction of justice.

The victim suffered from multiple sclerosis and was extremely vulnerable.

The accused had an extensive history of domestic violence convictions with over 40 prior convictions, at least seventeen of which were domestic-related.

The court imposed a four-year global sentence with credit for 538 days of pre-trial custody at the standard 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in 21 months remaining to be served, followed by a three-year probation order.