Kevin Regimbal

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Todd Snow of sexual assault, failure to comply with probation, and failure to comply with a peace bond.

The complainant alleged non-consensual vaginal intercourse, while the defendant claimed consensual oral sex.

DNA evidence linked the defendant to the complainant’s external genitalia and vaginal swabs, strongly supporting the Crown’s case.

The defendant’s prior statement denying any sexual contact was found to be fabricated to conceal guilt.

The court accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible despite her prior convictions and challenges related to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The decision highlights the importance of DNA evidence and the legal distinction between disbelief and fabrication of exculpatory statements.

This decision concerns a multi-count fraud prosecution against Richard Belbas, who was tried on 21 counts arising from four indictments.

The court reviews the elements of criminal fraud, the assessment of credibility, and the application of the law to a series of factual scenarios involving alleged fraudulent contracting and business practices.

The court finds Belbas guilty on multiple counts of fraud over and under $5,000, as well as breach of probation, and acquits on several counts where the evidence did not meet the threshold for conviction.

The appellant appealed her conviction for assault causing bodily harm and breach of probation, arguing the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to call reply evidence.

The appellant contended this constituted an improper splitting of the Crown's case, related to a collateral issue, and was used improperly to assess credibility.

The reply evidence concerned an officer's attempt to contact the appellant at her apartment, which countered the appellant's alibi defence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the reply evidence was properly admitted as it directly responded to the alibi defence and was not an improper splitting of the Crown's case or related to a collateral issue.

The accused, Dustin Moffatt, was charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault stemming from a stabbing incident.

The case primarily hinged on the identity of the assailant, referred to as the 'Man in Black' (MIB), based largely on circumstantial and video evidence.

The court meticulously analyzed video footage and witness testimony, particularly focusing on the accused's location at the time of the incident and the movements of another individual, the 'Red Hat Man'.

The judge found that video evidence indicated the accused was unconscious and lying on the ground during the stabbings, and that the MIB was likely the 'Red Hat Man' who later rode away on the accused's bike.

This raised reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the assailant.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The accused, Courtney LaBelle, was convicted of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of her 11-year-old son.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, considering the brutal nature of the offence, the breach of trust, and the statutory requirement to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for offences involving child abuse.

Mitigating factors included the accused's Indigenous background and drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offence, which diminished her moral culpability.

The court balanced these factors, rejecting both the Crown's request for 18 years and the defence's request for 10 years, ultimately imposing a 15-year period of parole ineligibility.