Kenneth G. Walker

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.

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.

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.