Kenneth Gordon Walker

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and uttering death threats against a complainant with whom he had a relationship beginning when she was 16 and he was 21.

The trial turned on credibility and the application of the W.(D.) framework.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, while the accused's evidence was inconsistent and improbable.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault on June 3, 2024 (when the complainant was intoxicated and did not consent), assault on April 23, 2024 (involving squeezing the complainant's abdomen and throat while she was pregnant), and uttering death threats on April 23, 2024 (stating the complainant and baby would die).

The court acquitted on the February 29, 2024 sexual assault allegation due to insufficient reliability of evidence given the complainant's extreme intoxication.

The defendant was convicted after trial of 11 offences including multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, unlawful confinement, and weapons offences arising from a pattern of intimate partner violence perpetrated against his common-law partner over a six-year period from 2016 to 2022.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years (2,729 days) with credit for pre-trial custody of 1,665 days (at 1.5:1 ratio), resulting in a remaining sentence of 1,074 days.

The sentencing emphasized denunciation, specific and general deterrence, and separation from society, with mandatory ancillary orders including DNA collection, firearms prohibitions, weapon forfeiture, SOIRA registration for life, and a non-communication order.

The decision concerns the trial of T.D., who was charged with sexual offences against two complainants, H.M. and E.C. The court reviews the evidence of both complainants, the accused, and other witnesses, and applies the law regarding credibility, collusion, and similar fact evidence.

The court finds the accused guilty of sexual offences against E.C. but not guilty regarding H.M., due to concerns about H.M.'s credibility and inconsistencies in her evidence, including a statement suggesting a motive to fabricate.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the law on credibility, delayed disclosure, demeanor, motive to fabricate, and the use of similar fact evidence.

Joseph Pauze was sentenced for possessing fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking and crystal methamphetamine.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 4-8 years for fentanyl and 3-6 months consecutive for methamphetamine, while the defendant sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the dangerous nature of fentanyl, the local opioid crisis, the defendant's lengthy criminal record including prior trafficking convictions, and mitigating factors such as his age, poor health, and cooperation.

The court found the trafficking level to be beyond street level and emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

A six-year sentence for fentanyl trafficking and a concurrent six-month sentence for methamphetamine possession were imposed, along with forfeiture, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

This is a historical sexual assault trial where the accused, R.D., was charged with sexual touching and sexual assault of C.H. between 1990 and 1992, when C.H. was aged 12-14.

The complainant alleged vaginal penetration, forced fellatio, and manual stimulation.

The accused pleaded not guilty, denying all allegations and presenting theories of fabrication related to a later consensual romantic relationship and subsequent harassment report.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the Crown's proof of the essential elements of the offences, citing credibility and reliability issues with all witnesses, absence of evidence, and lack of cogent evidence.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple charges including possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and fentanyl, possession of a prohibited weapon, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The central issue at sentencing was whether a term of imprisonment should be served in custody or in the community as a conditional sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including general deterrence, denunciation, proportionality, and the unique circumstances of the Indigenous offender as per Gladue principles, acknowledging a history of intergenerational trauma, abuse, and addiction.

Despite significant rehabilitative efforts by the offender, the court emphasized the serious public safety concerns posed by fentanyl trafficking in the community.

The court concluded that denunciation and deterrence were paramount, necessitating a period of incarceration exceeding two years.

A global sentence of three years imprisonment was imposed, along with ancillary orders for DNA, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized items, while waiving the victim fine surcharge.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to abridge time and validate service of three expert reports, compel answers to outstanding undertakings, and amend the statement of claim to include punitive damages and relevant legislation.

The court granted the abridgment and validation for two expert reports (Ms. Wainio-Smit and Dr. Lionel Marks de Chabris), finding reasonable explanations for the delay and that any prejudice could be cured by costs or adjournment.

The motion for the third, unserved expert report was adjourned.

The request to compel undertakings was dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary basis.

The motion to amend the pleadings to add a claim for punitive damages and statutory references was granted conditionally: it would be granted if the trial is adjourned due to the expert report issues, with a costs order in favour of the defendants; otherwise, it would be dismissed due to presumed prejudice from delay.

This sentencing decision addresses three co-accused, James Bolan, Jarrett Jocko, and Gilbert Ryan Wilson, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling house.

The victim sustained severe, life-altering injuries from a premeditated and violent vigilante attack.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the extreme violence and premeditation, and mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, pre-sentence custody, and the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns (Duncan factors).

Gladue principles were applied for the Indigenous offenders, Bolan and Jocko.

The court rejected the defence's request for time served, imposing a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment for aggravated assault and 1 year concurrent for unlawful entry, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included DNA orders, lifetime firearms prohibitions (with sustenance hunting exception for Indigenous offenders), and no-contact orders with the victim and a co-accused.

This criminal trial concerned allegations of sexual assault and controlling behaviour by the accused against the complainant, who was a minor (16/17) at the time of the incidents.

The complainant alleged multiple non-consensual sexual acts, including vaginal, anal, and oral assaults, as well as choking, occurring within an otherwise romantic relationship.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible despite its scattered presentation and incremental disclosure, attributing these to her youth, mental health issues, and the abusive nature of the relationship.

The accused's testimony was entirely rejected due to numerous inconsistencies, fantastical claims, and attempts to tailor his evidence.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused, Falcon Beauchamp, brought a Charter application under s. 8 to exclude an imitation firearm and narcotics found in his vehicle after a traffic stop and search.

The search was conducted under s. 32(5) of the Liquor Licence Act based on an observed open beer can.

The court found the search unlawful due to a lack of objective reasonable grounds.

However, applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court determined that the seriousness of the breach was low, the impact on the accused's Charter rights was moderate, and society's interest in adjudicating serious drug and gun offences was high.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The defendant in a personal injury case brought a motion seeking to admit two expert reports and allow two experts to testify.

The plaintiff had previously filed a complaint against the first expert (Dr. Marks) with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, leading the defendant to retain a second expert (Dr. Ford).

The court denied the defendant's request to file Dr. Marks' report and Dr. Ford's report, citing concerns about fairness and the potential for repetitive expert evidence.

However, the court permitted Dr. Marks to testify viva voce, but limited his evidence to observations and testing results, excluding medico-legal opinions.

Dr. Ford was also permitted to testify viva voce, but without reference to Dr. Marks' opinions.

Costs for the motion were reserved to the end of the trial.

The accused, D.G., was charged with two counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against the complainant, C.C., arising from a volatile common-law relationship.

The court heard evidence regarding verbal and physical altercations.

The accused admitted to restraining the complainant on two occasions, claiming self-defense.

Applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) for credibility and s. 34 of the Criminal Code for self-defense, the court found that the accused's actions of restraint for the first assault count (July 2016) were reasonable and proportionate in self-defense, leading to an acquittal.

For the second assault count (March 14, 2017), while an act of simple assault was established, the court again found the self-defense argument had an "air of reality" and the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in lawful self-defense.

Regarding the alleged punch to the head on March 14, 2017, and the sexual assault count, the court found serious credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, noting inconsistencies in her statements to police and lack of medical attention for the alleged head injury.

Consequently, the court was left with reasonable doubt on these counts.

All charges were dismissed, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, sexual touching, and uttering threats against a 14-year-old complainant.

The court found significant inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the complainant's testimony, which could not be solely attributed to her youth or the traumatic nature of the alleged events.

The accused's testimony also had flaws.

Due to considerable doubt regarding the events, the accused was found not guilty of all charges.

This criminal trial involved 16 counts against the accused, Gary Joseph Levar, including various assault-related charges and a breach of recognizance.

The court heard evidence over nine days, focusing heavily on witness credibility, particularly given the extensive drug use by the complainant, the accused, and other key witnesses during the alleged events.

Forensic evidence, including toxicology and DNA analysis, was also presented.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) regarding reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the court found the evidence of the complainant to be unreliable due to drug intoxication and periods of unconsciousness, and found that the testimony of defence witnesses, particularly Vanessa McKinnon, raised reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on 14 of the 16 counts, including all serious assault charges, and Count 2 was dismissed at the Crown's request.

The accused was convicted only on Count 16, a breach of recognizance, and sentenced to 60 days incarceration with credit for pre-trial custody.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle under section 249(1) of the Criminal Code and carrying a concealed weapon under section 90(1) of the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on events at a bush party on July 22, 2011, where bear spray canisters were discharged at partygoers.

The court found the accused guilty of carrying a concealed weapon.

The decision addresses the elements of the offence: the nature of bear spray as a prohibited weapon, the meaning of "carrying" in the context of a vehicle, and the requirement that the weapon be concealed with the requisite mens rea.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and carrying a concealed weapon.

The Crown alleged that the accused pursued another vehicle at high speed on Second Line, made contact with it multiple times, and sprayed bear mace at the driver.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding the relative positions of the vehicles and the sequence of events.

The testimony of two teenage witnesses corroborated the accused's version that the complainant's vehicle was behind the accused's vehicle.

The court acquitted the accused on the dangerous driving charge due to reasonable doubt.

The court adjourned the concealed weapon charge for further consideration.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a child who lived with him in a family setting.

The offences occurred repeatedly over several years and included acts of oral sex, masturbation, and two incidents of anal penetration while the offender stood in a position akin to a parent.

The court considered aggravating factors including the prolonged abuse, threats, the offender’s position of trust, and the lasting impact on the victim.

A Gladue report detailing the offender’s Indigenous background, substance abuse history, poverty, and systemic disadvantages was considered.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual abuse, the court imposed concurrent penitentiary sentences totaling five years.

The offender was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault after attacking a teenage victim who had been forced to kneel and apologize before being struck and repeatedly kicked.

The victim suffered multiple facial fractures requiring surgery and continued to experience lasting physical and psychological harm.

At sentencing, the court considered the offender’s youth, Indigenous background, difficult family history, substance abuse issues, and lack of prior violent convictions.

While denunciation and deterrence were significant given the violent and premeditated nature of the attack, the court placed meaningful weight on rehabilitation.

The court imposed an 18‑month custodial sentence in a provincial institution followed by three years of probation, together with weapons prohibitions and a DNA order.