3 total
A youth convicted of sexual assault and forcible confinement was sentenced to 12 months open custody after the court found the victim's psychological trauma constituted serious bodily harm.
A youth was convicted of sexual assault and forcible confinement of a victim that occurred on March 6, 2016, when the youth was 17¾ years old.
At sentencing, the Crown sought 9 to 12 months open custody followed by 12 to 18 months probation.
The defence sought a deferred custody and supervision order (DCSO) of 4 to 6 months followed by probation, or alternatively, 3 to 4 months open custody.
The court found that the offence caused serious bodily harm to the victim, rendering a DCSO unavailable under section 42(5) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The court imposed 8 months custody followed by 4 months community supervision, with a 12-month probationary period.
A sentence review was ordered for December 1, 2017, to assess the youth's progress and potential amelioration of the sentence.
Custody Case dismissed
The accused, a youth, was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement of a complainant following an incident at a residential party.
The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual intercourse occurred and that the complainant did not consent.
The court found the complainant credible despite minor inconsistencies in her testimony, noting that sexual assault victims do not react uniformly.
The defence witnesses lacked credibility and reliability.
The court found the accused guilty of both sexual assault and forcible confinement, finding that blocking the doorway followed by a forceful push constituted confinement.
Sentencing was adjourned.
The accused was convicted of impaired driving based on circumstantial evidence including erratic driving, slurred speech, and an odour of alcohol.
The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 contrary to the Criminal Code.
The Crown called three witnesses: a security guard, the arresting officer, and a qualified breath technician.
The court dismissed the over 80 charge due to insufficient proof that the first breath sample was taken within two hours as required by section 258(1)(c)(ii).
However, the court convicted on the impaired driving charge based on the totality of evidence demonstrating impairment of the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle.
