Karin S. Stein

The accused, Abel Hailu, faced multiple Criminal Code charges including sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, forcible confinement, criminal harassment (two counts), intimidation, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and kidnapping, arising from an incident on October 14, 2022.

The central issue was consent, with the complainant alleging non-consensual sexual activity and forced movement under threat of a knife, and the accused claiming all interactions were consensual.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by other evidence, including the accused's internet search history and post-incident communications, which indicated planning and an intent to control.

The accused's explanations were rejected as not credible.

The court convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused, Abel Hailu, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through alleged breaches of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights, specifically concerning police takeover of the complainant's phone for text messaging, his arrest, strip search, and search of his residence and electronic devices.

The court found that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages with the complainant, who was a stranger and alleged victim of a sexual assault and kidnapping.

Therefore, no s. 8 breach occurred regarding the text messages, and the subsequent arrest was lawful.

The court also found no s. 8 breaches regarding the strip search or the search of his residence and electronic devices, as these were conducted reasonably and based on valid warrants.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

His Majesty the King brought an application for certiorari and mandamus to challenge a trial judge's declaration of a mistrial in a domestic violence case.

The respondent argued against the remedies and raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found that the trial judge's intemperate and disparaging remarks towards counsel and the respondent created an appearance of unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias, thereby rebutting the presumption of judicial impartiality.

Consequently, the court declined to remit the matter back to the original trial judge for further consideration.

The accused, T.M., was charged with multiple counts of assault and sexual assault against R.G., and one count of assault against E.M. The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, R.G., and the accused, T.M., applying the W.D. analysis.

The court found R.G.'s evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable, noting her animus towards T.M. and delayed, inconsistent disclosures.

The court believed T.M.'s denials and found him not guilty on all charges.

The appellant, Shawn Labrosse-Quinn, appealed a six-month sentence for robbery and possession of stolen property, arguing the sentencing judge misconstrued his role and erred in not imposing a conditional or intermittent sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the sentencing judge correctly assessed the appellant's moral culpability as a getaway driver who was wilfully blind to the robbery and did not err in declining a conditional or intermittent sentence, emphasizing the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The appeal was dismissed.

Edward McGrath sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail on the tertiary ground.

He was charged with 23 offences, including discharging a firearm over a complainant's head while on probation and a s. 109 order, and drug trafficking.

The applicant proposed an improved bail plan with two sureties and addiction treatment.

The court found the addition of a new surety who would supervise the applicant at work constituted a material change in circumstances, warranting a de novo hearing.

However, despite the strong bail plan and capable sureties, the court concluded that releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, given the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the Crown's case, and the applicant's breach of existing orders.

The original detention order was upheld.

The accused, a personal support worker at a long-term care facility, pleaded guilty to assaulting an elderly dementia patient in a wheelchair.

The assault was captured on video surveillance and consisted of 11 strikes to the victim's face during a diaper change.

The victim suffered no physical injuries but the family experienced significant emotional trauma.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent jail sentence with 18 months' probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles.

The court rejected a conditional sentence order, finding that incarceration was necessary to protect vulnerable populations and deter similar conduct by caregivers.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, 2012: failing to stop after being involved in an accident knowing bodily harm was caused, impaired driving causing bodily harm, and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood while causing an accident resulting in bodily harm.

The court found that the accused's vehicle struck a cyclist, causing serious injury.

The Crown's case was significantly weakened by Charter breaches committed by police during the accused's detention, resulting in the exclusion of breath samples and statements.

The court convicted the accused of impaired driving causing bodily harm but acquitted on the other two counts, finding reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused knew or was wilfully blind to having struck a person.