J.W. Bovard

The accused was charged with sexual assault after a stranger grabbed the complainant's buttocks.

The complainant followed the assailant to a convenience store, and police later obtained surveillance video showing the accused in the store.

The court assessed the reliability of the complainant's eyewitness identification, noting several frailties including cross-racial identification, discrepancies in the description of the assailant's build and clothing, and the short duration of observation under stress.

The court found these frailties raised a reasonable doubt about identity and acquitted the accused.

The accused, an Indigenous woman, applied for bail on 23 charges, including multiple counts of theft under $5000 from LCBO stores, possession of property obtained by crime, and several firearms offences.

The bail hearing was a reverse onus situation due to the accused allegedly committing indictable offences while on release and possessing firearms while under a prohibition order.

The court considered the Gladue factors but found the proposed release plan and surety inadequate.

The court ordered the accused's detention on both the secondary ground, citing a substantial likelihood of reoffending, and the tertiary ground, emphasizing the gravity of the firearms offences and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was charged with 'Over 80' and impaired driving after his truck collided with a pole.

The trial judge found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for impaired driving due to the officer's unreliable and contradictory evidence, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The court also found a breach of section 10(b) because the police refused to allow the accused to call his lawyer at the roadside despite having his phone and the opportunity to do so.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2).

Without the breath readings, and finding the toxicologist's report insufficient, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed all charges.

The defendant applied for $5,000 in costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his s. 7 rights due to the late disclosure of a witness statement which caused a trial adjournment.

The court found that the late disclosure was the result of an inadvertent administrative error by Crown staff, not a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The court dismissed the application, holding that no s. 7 breach occurred and that costs are not an appropriate remedy for inadvertent disclosure errors or trial adjournments.

The applicant, an international student, pleaded guilty to assaulting his intimate partner and was granted a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation.

The probation order included a boundary condition prohibiting him from being within 100 meters of the victim, who attended the same college.

The applicant brought an application to vary the boundary condition to allow him to attend classes, arguing a change in circumstances as the victim refused to provide written consent for contact.

The court found a change in circumstances but dismissed the application, holding that the boundary condition under s. 732.1(2)(a.1) of the Criminal Code is a compulsory condition, and the court only has jurisdiction to vary optional conditions under s. 732.2(3).

The accused was charged with threatening to kill his former partner during a dispute over access to their child.

The complainant alleged the accused threatened her life after she opposed his request for unsupervised access.

The court found the complainant lacked credibility, noting she had previously sworn a false affidavit recanting prior domestic violence allegations, hired a private investigator to monitor the accused's access visits, and only reported the alleged threat after receiving an unfavorable custody recommendation.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the accused's evidence and found the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.