Karl S. McNamara

The accused was tried for assaulting a peace officer and uttering a death threat following an interaction where the officer shot the accused.

The officer testified that the accused grabbed his radio antenna and threatened to kill him while reaching into a backpack containing a sawed-off shotgun.

Two civilian witnesses testified they did not see a physical altercation, and one testified she did not hear the threat.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the civilian witnesses credible and reliable, raising a reasonable doubt about the officer's recollection.

The accused was acquitted of both charges, though he had previously pleaded guilty to weapons offences.

A young person was tried for multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference against a younger sibling, along with a charge of uttering threats.

The complainant described repeated nighttime incidents in which the accused entered her bedroom and engaged in sexual touching, including digital penetration on one occasion.

The defence challenged reliability due to delay in reporting, alleged inconsistencies, and testimony from family members denying that the accused ever slept in the complainant’s room.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and principles governing assessment of child witness testimony, the court accepted the complainant’s evidence as detailed, logical, and compelling, and rejected the defence evidence.

The Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

A young person was charged with two counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual interference, and one count of threatening.

The complainant was the accused's younger sister.

The allegations involved multiple incidents of sexual touching occurring between January 2014 and May 2015, and a threatening statement made in November 2017.

The court found the complainant's evidence detailed, consistent, and compelling.

The court rejected the defence evidence and accepted the Crown's submissions.

The accused was convicted on all five counts.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment in employment and a failure by the respondents to properly investigate.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondents requested that the two applications be heard together and that the hearing be adjourned.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated due to overlapping facts and the risk of inconsistent findings, and granted the adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the exclusion of witnesses but exempted the respondents' advisor, provided he testify first.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that intended testimony regarding one applicant spreading rumours was inadmissible character evidence.