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.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement, and firearms offences, primarily against his former intimate partner, as well as one count of assault against her child.

The trial focused heavily on the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, as the accused denied the allegations.

The court found the complainant and other Crown witnesses credible and rejected the accused's testimony.

The accused was found guilty of assault, choking, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, forcible confinement, mischief, sexual assault, possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, and assault of the child.

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.

The accused, an Indigenous man, was found guilty of sexually assaulting his intimate partner.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the accused sought three years.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the frequency of the assaults and the victim's vulnerability, alongside the mitigating factors of the accused's limited record and mental health issues.

Applying Gladue principles, the court acknowledged the accused's impoverished upbringing and systemic background factors but found that the serious nature of the offence required a significant penitentiary term.

The accused was sentenced to four years in custody.

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 accused applied to sever counts in an indictment involving two different complainants, both of whom are his biological daughters.

The charges relate to allegations of sexual offences against minors.

Applying the factors from R. v. Last, the court found sufficient factual and legal nexus between the counts and determined that a judge sitting alone would not be subject to moral or reasoning prejudice.

The application for severance was dismissed, as the public interest in a single trial outweighed any risk of prejudice to the accused.

The accused brought an application to exclude his statement to police following his arrest for a home invasion robbery, alleging Charter breaches and involuntariness.

The court dismissed the Charter claims, finding the accused understood his jeopardy when he spoke with counsel despite being under the influence of drugs.

However, the court found that the interviewing officer offered an improper inducement by suggesting a confession to a drug-fueled crime would potentially change the Crown's course of action.

Consequently, the portion of the statement made after the inducement was excluded as involuntary.

The applicants, accused of a home invasion robbery, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (including firearms and disguises) found in the trunk of a vehicle.

The police had stopped the vehicle hours after the robbery without reasonable grounds, detaining the occupants for an extended period without reading them their rights to counsel.

The court found serious breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the seriousness of the breaches and their impact on the applicants' rights outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, resulting in the exclusion of the evidence.

The applicants, charged with offences relating to a home invasion robbery, brought an application to adduce evidence that a third party committed the robbery.

The court found a strong nexus between the third party and the crime, noting police intelligence and surveillance linking the third party to a vehicle similar to the one used in the robbery.

The court held that the proposed evidence was relevant and probative, and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The application was allowed.

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.