Kenneth Gordon Walker

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.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court considered historical allegations that the accused, while acting as the complainant's mother's boyfriend, engaged the complainant in repeated sexual acts during childhood in a violent and unstable home.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence, accepted the complainant's testimony as credible and reliable, and found corroborative support in surrounding evidence about the household dynamics, opportunity, and the complainant's delayed disclosure.

Defence theories of fabrication based on compensation, a prior altercation, drug-related conflict, and relationship difficulties were rejected as speculative or inconsistent with common sense.

Convictions were entered for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault.

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.