DNA evidence

The accused was charged with the second-degree murder of his mother.

The Crown and defence agreed to proceed by way of admissions for much of the evidence.

The court first had to determine whether the accused committed the actus reus of the offence before considering a potential defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

Based on overwhelming forensic, DNA, and circumstantial evidence, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of the victim by inflicting multiple sharp force injuries.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, a 16-year-old, became highly intoxicated at the accused's residence and was unable to consent to sexual activity.

Witnesses observed the complainant naked from the waist down with the accused, and DNA evidence linked the accused to spermatozoa found on the complainant.

The court found the accused guilty, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that a sexual assault occurred while the complainant was incapacitated.

The accused was charged with aggravated sexual assault, uttering death threats, and choking following a violent attack on a stranger walking home at night.

The attacker dragged the victim, repeatedly punched her, strangled her to the point of unconsciousness, and sexually assaulted her.

The court found the Crown proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt based on compelling DNA evidence and the victim's physical description.

The court also found the victim was wounded and her life was endangered by the strangulation.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The Crown brought an application to remove the accused's defence counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest.

One of the defence counsel had previously represented a former suspect who was initially charged with the same murder in 1998 before being cleared by DNA and fingerprint evidence.

The Crown argued counsel would be unable to effectively challenge the forensic evidence or advance a third-party suspect defence without implicating the former client.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a third-party suspect defence pointing to the former client was not realistically available and that counsel could effectively challenge the forensic evidence without implicating him.

The accused's right to counsel of choice was upheld.

The accused was tried for sexual assault and unlawful confinement of a young employee following a work-related meeting at the accused's home.

The employee became highly intoxicated and passed out, later waking up to find the accused sexually touching him.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's denials and relying on the complainant's testimony, which was supported by circumstantial DNA evidence.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault but acquitted of unlawful confinement due to reasonable doubt regarding physical restraint.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial on charges of robbery and disguise with intent.

The Crown's case relied on DNA evidence found on two pieces of clothing used as a disguise, which were discovered near the scene of the robbery shortly after it occurred.

The applicant argued that without proof of when the DNA was deposited, there was insufficient evidence to commit him.

The reviewing judge dismissed the application, finding it was open to the preliminary inquiry judge to conclude there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could convict.

The accused faced 22 charges relating to three random attacks on women and a scheme involving fake Craigslist job postings.

The Crown alleged the accused targeted women for kidnapping and sexual assault.

The court found the accused guilty of multiple offences, including robbery, attempt kidnapping, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and attempt sexual assault in relation to the physical attacks, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence, DNA, and the doctrine of recent possession.

However, the court acquitted the accused of attempt kidnapping and attempt sexual assault regarding the Craigslist scheme, finding the acts did not go beyond mere preparation and the specific intent was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The self-represented applicant, having been convicted of aggravated assault and breach of probation, applied prior to sentencing to vacate the finding of guilt and declare a mistrial.

He alleged breaches of his Charter rights due to the Crown's failure to disclose evidence and ineffective assistance by his trial counsel, particularly regarding an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting DNA evidence.

The court dismissed the application, finding no merit to the disclosure complaints and concluding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding a tactical decision was better suited for an appeal where a proper evidentiary record could be established.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following a stabbing at a house party.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the attacker.

The accused testified and denied stabbing the complainant, but the court rejected his evidence due to significant inconsistencies with his post-arrest statement.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by DNA evidence on the knife and a Facebook message from the accused expressing remorse.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

The appellant was convicted of theft under $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime after a stolen vehicle was found abandoned with a balaclava inside containing his DNA.

The trial judge relied on the DNA evidence and the proximity of the theft to other crimes the appellant was acquitted of.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the verdict unreasonable, as the DNA evidence only proved the appellant wore the balaclava at some point, not that he possessed it during the theft.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for bank robbery, arguing the verdict was unreasonable because it relied entirely on his DNA found on a plastic shopping bag used during the robbery.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting the absence of any other evidence linking the appellant to the crime, such as eyewitness identification or surveillance footage.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that generic physical descriptions could connect the appellant to the robbery, emphasizing that plastic bags are commonplace and reusable.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and an acquittal entered.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation of the young complainant.

The Crown argued the trial judge misapprehended forensic evidence showing the complainant's saliva on the respondent's underwear.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge misunderstood the DNA evidence and its ability to confirm the complainant's testimony.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl, designated a dangerous offender, and given an indeterminate sentence.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended eyewitness identification, cell tower, and DNA evidence, and erred in rejecting a determinate sentence with long-term supervision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence and noting the overwhelming case against the appellant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge reasonably concluded the appellant's risk could not be managed in the community.

The accused was originally charged in 1987 with offences arising from a series of home invasion sexual assaults but was discharged at a preliminary inquiry in 1989.

In 2010, after advances in DNA technology linked him to the crime scenes, a new indictment was preferred.

The trial judge stayed the proceedings, finding that the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated by including the 21-year 'gap' period in the delay calculation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the accused was not a 'person charged with an offence' during the gap period when he was unaware of any ongoing investigation, and therefore s. 11(b) was not engaged during that time.

The accused was charged with six offences relating to three armed robberies committed at bus stops in Brampton and Mississauga within a one-hour period.

The robber used an imitation handgun to steal cellphones and bus tickets, fleeing in a van.

The Crown relied on eyewitness identification, similar fact evidence, DNA found on a baseball cap in the getaway van, and the accused's subsequent sale of the stolen cellphones.

The court admitted the similar fact evidence, finding the robberies strikingly similar.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unworthy of belief and found that the cumulative evidence proved his identity as the robber beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of all charges.

The accused was charged with nine offences, including robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of an imitation firearm, following a violent home invasion.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's possession of stolen property shortly after the robbery, cell phone records, and DNA evidence linking the victim's blood to a jacket found in the accused's bedroom.

The accused raised an alibi defence through his girlfriend's testimony.

The court rejected the alibi evidence as not credible and applied the doctrine of recent possession and the test for circumstantial evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding he was a party to the common intention to commit the armed robbery and that the aggravated assault was objectively foreseeable.

The accused was charged with robbery and using an imitation firearm following a jewelry store hold-up by two men.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification from a photo lineup and DNA found on a baseball cap left at the scene, which the Crown alleged was worn by the other perpetrator.

The defence called an alibi witness who testified the accused was with her at the time of the offence.

The court found the alibi evidence, while not fully believed, raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also noted frailties in the eyewitness identification and found the circumstantial DNA evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.

The accused was acquitted.

The young person, charged with second degree murder, brought pre-trial applications seeking a stay of proceedings and the exclusion of certain evidence.

The moving party argued his right to silence was violated when he was compelled to testify at the preliminary inquiry of his adult co-accused.

The court dismissed the stay application, finding no breach of the Crown's undertaking or the right to silence.

The court ruled photographs of the moving party's hands admissible, finding their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

However, the court excluded late-disclosed DNA evidence regarding blood on the moving party's sweatshirt, finding its admission would prejudice the defence.

A subsequent request by the Crown to admit the DNA evidence in reply was denied, with the court instead providing a strong caution to the jury.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault following an incident at his apartment.

The complainant alleged that the accused forced intercourse and digitally penetrated her, while the accused denied any sexual contact, claiming he only physically struggled to remove her from his home.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, applying the W.(D.) framework.

Relying on the complainant's credible testimony, corroborating physical evidence including damage to the apartment, and DNA evidence linking the accused to a condom found at the scene, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault.