DNA evidence

The appellant appealed from his conviction on two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance and three counts of break and enter a dwelling house and commit theft, as well as from his sentence of time served (585 days pre-sentence custody credited at 878 days).

The appellant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds, including claims that he did not understand the proceedings, was not provided with disclosure, and that his counsel negotiated a resolution without his instructions.

The Court of Appeal found all allegations lacked credibility based on the record of the plea inquiry, written instructions from the appellant to counsel, and the appellant's express waiver of a translator.

The court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and the sentence imposed.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) that the trial judge pre-judged the case based on a prior domestic murder conviction; (2) that the trial judge erred in believing the complainant despite her potential financial motive to lie; and (3) that the trial judge failed to adequately account for the absence of the appellant's DNA on the hammer and complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no basis for the pre-judgment claim, that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's credibility, and that the absence of DNA evidence was not determinative given the complainant's accepted testimony.

The conviction appeal was dismissed and the sentence appeal was dismissed as moot.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault following a party at a mutual friend's home.

The appellant did not dispute that sexual intercourse occurred but claimed it was consensual.

The trial judge found the complainant was too intoxicated to consent to sexual activity and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the complainant's capacity to consent, the use of a toxicology report, DNA evidence, and the consideration of his criminal record.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no errors in the trial judge's reasoning and dismissing all grounds of appeal.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the stabbing death of Nighisti Semret in downtown Toronto on October 23, 2012.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that after-the-fact conduct had no probative value in distinguishing between levels of culpability; (2) that the trial judge failed to provide an O'Connor instruction regarding the appellant's false statements to police and medical personnel; and (3) that evidence of the appellant's trip to Germany should not have been admitted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The accused was charged with prowling and breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence on December 31, 2016 and January 2, 2017, as well as breach of probation for possessing a pellet gun on January 24, 2017.

The Crown relied primarily on the identification evidence of the victim, supported by circumstantial evidence including motive, the presence of a matching ammunition magazine at the scene, and sightings of the accused's vehicle.

The defence challenged the reliability of the identification, highlighting significant discrepancies between the victim's descriptions and the accused's physical characteristics, the victim's failure to identify the accused in a photo lineup, and exculpatory DNA evidence from a tuque found at the scene.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his application for certiorari to quash a committal to trial for robbery.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge properly concluded there was sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to infer the appellant was the robber.

The video evidence of the robbery combined with DNA evidence linking the appellant to t-shirts worn during the robbery was found to be sufficient to support the committal.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, and having his face masked while committing an indictable offence.

The defence conceded all elements except identity.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence from a white t-shirt found at the scene, witness descriptions, and testimony from two unsavoury witnesses with significant credibility issues.

The court found the accused guilty of armed robbery and masking his face, but not guilty of the firearm charge due to a statutory interpretation issue regarding section 85(3) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm arising from an alleged incident on June 12, 2016.

The complainant alleged the defendant raped her and punched her multiple times in the face, causing bruising and injuries.

The defendant claimed the sexual activity was consensual and that the complainant's injuries resulted from her falling while intoxicated.

The complainant passed away before trial, requiring the Crown to rely on hearsay statements.

The court found the defendant's testimony inconsistent, improbable, and contradicted by independent evidence.

However, due to material inconsistencies in the complainant's own statements and the absence of cross-examination to clarify them, the court found reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a complainant on April 3, 2015, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant was unable to identify her assailant as the assault occurred in darkness and she kept her eyes closed.

The defence raised issues of identity and continuity of forensic evidence.

DNA evidence from a sexual assault kit, collected from the complainant's body, was matched to the accused with a probability of 1 in 110 quadrillion.

Circumstantial evidence placed the accused in the bedroom where the assault occurred.

The court admitted the forensic evidence despite the defence challenge to its continuity and convicted the accused based on the overwhelming evidence.

The appellant was convicted of breaking into and assaulting a 68-year-old woman and breaking into and raping a 54-year-old woman.

He was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate term.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of DNA evidence obtained through a saliva sample, arguing his Charter rights were violated.

He also challenged the trial judge's failure to preserve evidence and appealed his indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no Charter violations in the DNA seizure, that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion regarding the destroyed evidence, and that the indeterminate sentence was appropriate given the appellant's high risk of reoffending and consistent refusal to engage in treatment.

The Crown applied to introduce multiple hearsay statements made by the deceased complainant in the aftermath of alleged sexual and physical assaults.

The statements included a 911 call, statements to police officers, and a video-recorded statement made ten days after the alleged offences.

The defendant opposed admission on hearsay grounds.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, analyzing both procedural and substantive reliability under the framework established in R. v. Khelawon and clarified in R. v. Bradshaw.

The court found that corroborative evidence, including DNA analysis, physical injuries, photographs, and police observations, established substantive reliability by ruling out alternative explanations for the statements.

All statements were admitted as admissible for the truth of their contents.

The appellant appealed his conviction for home invasion-related charges involving a firearm, including armed robbery, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, discharge of a firearm with intent to endanger life, and unlawful confinement.

The trial judge convicted the appellant on April 8, 2015, and imposed a global sentence of nine years and six months, less three years and four months credit for pre-sentence custody on June 30, 2015.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the convictions and the sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of identification evidence and rejecting the argument that the sentence was too harsh for a youthful offender.

The appellant was convicted of one count of break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, two counts of break and enter and commit an indictable offence, and three counts of possession of break-in instruments, arising from three Subway restaurant break-ins in Sault Ste.

Marie over five days in July 2012.

The Crown relied on similar fact evidence to connect the appellant to all three incidents.

On appeal, the Court found that the trial judge erred in his use of the appellant's criminal record and made material misapprehensions of the evidence regarding DNA on a balaclava, the appellant's cast on his right arm, and glass particles on his clothing.

These errors were essential to the trial judge's reasoning process and undermined the fairness of the trial.

The accused was charged with sexual assault upon a young man on January 1, 2014.

The complainant alleged that while intoxicated and under the influence of drugs at a New Year's Eve party, the accused performed fellatio upon him while he lay on a futon in the living room.

The Crown relied on viva voce evidence from the complainant and DNA evidence found on the complainant's underwear.

The defence presented the accused's testimony denying the assault and evidence from the accused's daughter regarding the events of that evening.

The court found that the complainant's evidence was tainted by his extensive drug use that evening and by embellishments added to his initial police statement.

The DNA evidence was found to be inconclusive due to the possibility of secondary transfer from blankets and furniture in the accused's home.

The court applied the proper burden of proof and the W.D. framework, ultimately finding reasonable doubt and acquitting the accused.

The accused was charged with four Criminal Code offences arising from alleged conduct on May 3, 2014: assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault with a weapon, theft under, and breach of probation.

The case turned entirely on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, a homeless woman with substance addictions.

The court found the complainant credible despite her difficult circumstances and inconsistencies on peripheral matters.

The court accepted her evidence that the accused assaulted her, causing a head injury; refused to return her cellphone when she requested it to call police; and raped her at knifepoint.

The presence of the accused's semen in the complainant's underwear corroborated the sexual assault allegation.

The accused was convicted on all four counts.

The Crown charged William Pav and Dylan Violo with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on College Street in Toronto on January 13, 2013, where the defendants allegedly participated in a swarming attack on Joseph Kau.

A directed verdict was granted on the assault with a weapon charge against Violo.

The trial focused on identification evidence and was corroborated by DNA evidence linking the defendants' clothing and Pav's hands to the victim's blood.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault causing bodily harm but acquitted Pav of assault with a weapon due to insufficient evidence of weapon use.

In a preliminary inquiry for second-degree murder, the court determined whether sufficient evidence existed to commit the accused to trial for the beating death of a rooming house resident.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on witness testimony, DNA evidence from shoes found at the scene, and circumstantial evidence of the accused's presence and conduct.

The court applied the test for committal, examining whether evidence could support reasonable inferences regarding both the requisite intent and the identity of the perpetrator.

The court found sufficient evidence on both issues to commit the accused to trial.

Two young persons were charged with sexual assault and gang sexual assault, as well as robbery with violence, arising from an incident on September 20, 2009, in Toronto.

The complainant, a sex worker, engaged in sexual activity with four young men in a stolen red Honda vehicle and was subsequently beaten and robbed.

The court found that while the defendants participated in the robbery, the Crown failed to prove sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court determined that although the complainant may have had subjective misgivings about the sexual activity, her outward conduct and words were consistent with consent, and the defendants could have held an honest but mistaken belief in her consent.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that consent was vitiated by fraud or the subsequent robbery.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision on a charge of first-degree murder in the death of Leanne Freeman on November 29, 2011.

The Crown sought to commit both accused for trial on first-degree murder charges.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for second-degree murder but argued insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation for first-degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused for trial on first-degree murder charges, relying on two alternative theories: (1) planning and deliberation, and (2) murder committed during unlawful confinement under Criminal Code section 231(5)(e).

A young person was charged with sexual assault of a 13-year-old complainant following a party in Belleville, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The defence admitted the sexual assault occurred but contested the identity of the perpetrator.

The trial focused on identification evidence, including the complainant's testimony, a properly conducted photo line-up, DNA evidence from a t-shirt found at the scene, and corroborating witness testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, and the identification evidence, considered as a whole, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.