Keeley Holmes

The accused was charged with sexual assault relating to four separate incidents involving a complainant he met on a dating app.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's testimony and text messages, while the accused denied the allegations and advanced an alibi for one incident.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's evidence due to significant inconsistencies and exaggeration.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness and convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after her daughter suffered a severe laceration to her forehead.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, alleging the accused intentionally injured the child out of frustration.

The accused testified the injury was an accident caused by a malfunctioning highchair.

Applying the principles from Villoroman and W.(D.), the court found that while the accused's testimony was not fully accepted, it left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was reasonably capable of supporting an inference that the injury was accidental, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused, charged with historical sexual offences against his son, brought a Mills application for the production of the complainant's counselling records.

The Crown brought a Seaboyer application to adduce evidence of sexual acts involving the complainant and his sister in the accused's presence.

The court dismissed the Mills application, finding the counselling records lacked detail and were not likely relevant.

The court granted the Seaboyer application, ruling that the sexual acts in the accused's presence constituted the subject matter of the charge and were not presumptively excluded under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, applied to vary his bail conditions to delete the house arrest requirement after nearly two years of compliance.

The Crown opposed the variation.

The court recognized the applicant's good track record but noted the seriousness of the charges.

The court crafted a compromise, modifying the house arrest condition to allow the applicant to leave the residence with written permission from his surety, subject to a curfew and other conditions.

In a murder trial, the Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of a 911 call purportedly made by a central Crown witness.

The Crown argued the call was admissible as the best evidence of the event and to rebut recent fabrication.

The defence argued the recording lacked context and amounted to improper oath-helping.

The court ruled the 911 call-back was inadmissible at this stage, finding it devoid of material information and that its admission would serve solely to bolster the witness's credibility before it was attacked, thereby offending the rule against oath-helping.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit four out-of-court statements made by a witness, Kulwant Litt, for the truth of their contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule (a K.G.B. application).

The witness, who is the father of one accused and father-in-law of the other, had previously confessed to his son (acting as a police agent) and the police about the accused's involvement in a murder and the subsequent disposal of the body, but later recanted.

The court found that necessity was established by the recantation and that threshold reliability was met through a combination of procedural reliability (the witness was available for cross-examination and the statements were recorded) and substantive reliability (confirmatory physical evidence and lack of motive to lie at the time).

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused brought a voir dire challenging the admissibility of a police statement following arrest for sexual assault, alleging a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter and involuntariness due to an alleged inducement that he would be home by dinner if he cooperated.

The court found that police adequately informed the accused of his right to counsel and properly clarified the right when questions were raised during the interview.

The judge rejected the accused’s evidence that an inducement had been made and found the officer’s testimony credible.

Applying the voluntariness framework from leading Supreme Court authorities, the court concluded the interview was conducted respectfully without threats, oppression, or inducements.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary.