DNA evidence

The defendant was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, kidnapping, forcible confinement, pointing a firearm, and firearm possession offences following a police stop on April 6, 2024.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the alleged victim, whose account was riddled with contradictions and demonstrated significant credibility issues.

The defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the firearm and denied assaulting or confining the alleged victim.

The court found the Crown failed to prove any charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual interference against two children under the age of 16 years.

The trial judge found that the appellant had committed sexual offences against both complainants in a park in Brantford on a single occasion in August 2019, and that he had also sexually abused one complainant over an extended period in the family home prior to the park incident.

The appellant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on three grounds: alleged errors in the W.(D.) analysis, uneven scrutiny of evidence, and misapprehension of DNA evidence.

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

The accused was charged with 23 offences arising from four armed robberies at gunpoint and firearm possession charges.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of each robbery as similar act evidence to establish identity.

The court admitted the similar act evidence, finding striking similarities across all four robberies including the use of the same firearm, vehicle, clothing, and modus operandi.

The court convicted the accused of three counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery, four counts of pointing a firearm, four counts of disguising face with intent to commit indictable offence, four counts of possessing a weapon for purpose of committing criminal offence, four counts of breaching a release order, and three firearm possession offences.

The accused was charged with murder and brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on late disclosure and abuse of process.

The Crown failed to disclose critical DNA evidence identifying the victim's brother's DNA on a mask recovered at the scene, which had been in police possession since January 7, 2025, but was not disclosed until September 9, 2025, on the eve of trial.

Additionally, the Crown failed to timely disclose cell tower evidence and corresponding witness statements necessary to establish the accused's identity as the suspect.

The court found serious violations of the accused's section 7 Charter rights and determined that the Crown's pattern of negligence, apathy, and late preparation constituted an abuse of process that undermined the integrity of the justice system.

A stay of proceedings was granted as the only appropriate remedy.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against the complainant on November 25, 2023.

The Crown alleged that the accused forcibly sexually assaulted the complainant in a bathroom at the residence of a third party.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed the assault did not occur.

The trial proceeded on the basis of credibility assessments and circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence, witness testimony regarding the complainant's immediate post-assault demeanor, and the accused's suspicious conduct and flight from the scene.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's testimony as internally and externally inconsistent, and found that the Crown proved all essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender pleaded guilty to two historical sexual assault convictions: one committed in 1987 against a woman in her home using a knife as a weapon, and another committed in 1993 against a young woman in a public area.

The offences were discovered through DNA evidence linking the 1987 assault to the 1993 assault in 2003, with the offender finally identified through genealogical investigation in 2023, approximately 30 years after the second assault.

The court imposed an 8-year penitentiary sentence (5 years for the first assault, 3 years consecutive for the second), along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order, firearms prohibition, DNA order, and section 743.21 order.

The court rejected the defence position for a conditional sentence, finding that the gravity of the offences and the offender's degree of responsibility required a significant custodial sentence despite mitigating factors including guilty pleas, remorse, and 30+ years without further criminal conduct.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and related offences for firing shots at a female acquaintance, striking her twice.

The sole issues at trial were the identity of the shooter and intent to kill.

The trial judge rejected direct identification evidence and limited-weight photo identification evidence, instead relying almost entirely on circumstantial evidence including GPS data from the suspect vehicle, security camera footage with timestamps, and DNA evidence.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in accepting the accuracy of security camera timestamps without proper authentication and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no legal error in the trial judge's application of the law regarding measurement devices in common usage and concluding that the verdict was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence.

The applicant was convicted of sexual interference, internet luring, and two counts of failing to comply with a release order.

He was sentenced to six years and ten months imprisonment.

The applicant applied for bail pending appeal of his convictions.

The motion judge refused bail, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, it barely met that threshold.

The enforceability considerations arising from the grave nature of the offences—ongoing sexual abuse of a 13-year-old child—outweighed the weak grounds of appeal.

The motion judge concluded that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

A youth was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The Crown and defence agreed that sexual intercourse occurred between the accused and the complainant, both aged 17 at the time.

The sole issue was whether the sexual activity was consensual.

The complainant testified that she did not consent and that the accused forced her into sexual activity despite her verbal and physical resistance.

The accused testified that the sexual activity was consensual and that he obtained the complainant's permission.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation (2x) following an incident on August 9, 2018, in which the victim was slashed across the face with a knife outside a men's shelter.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The Crown presented direct evidence from the victim, extensive video surveillance evidence, DNA evidence linking the accused to clothing found at the scene, DNA evidence of the victim on a knife found during the accused's arrest, and non-expert recognition evidence from police officers.

The defence conceded the accused was present at the scene but argued an alternative suspect may have committed the assault.

The court found the evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on all counts.

The defendant was charged with incest and sexual assault involving his half-sister.

The Crown alleged that on July 30, 2017, the defendant engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant while she was sleeping.

The defendant claimed the complainant was the aggressor and that he masturbated to end her advances.

The court found the defendant guilty of both offences based on the complainant's credible testimony, corroborated by DNA evidence showing the defendant's semen on and inside the complainant's body.

The defendant's explanation for the DNA evidence was rejected as implausible.

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 appellant was convicted of bank robbery and related offences following a trial by judge alone.

The main issue at trial was the identity of the robber, with evidence being circumstantial.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on DNA evidence linking him to a pocket knife left at the crime scene and a t-shirt found in the getaway vehicle.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the reasonableness of the verdict.

The majority upheld the conviction, finding that the cumulative circumstantial evidence excluded any reasonable alternative to guilt.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding that the DNA evidence lacked a temporal connection to the robbery and that alternative explanations remained reasonable.

The accused was charged with two counts of break and enter with sexual assault.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification evidence from the first complainant and DNA evidence from a discarded cigarette butt found near the second residence.

The accused denied the allegations and testified that he was at home sleeping at the time of the offences.

The court found that while the first complainant made a positive identification, there were significant frailties in the identification evidence and alternative suspects with stronger circumstantial connections to the crimes.

The DNA evidence, while probative, could not establish when the cigarette butt was smoked.

The court concluded that the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The accused, K.D.B., was charged with sexual assault, administration of a stupefying substance (lorazepam), and breaches of undertaking and firearm prohibition.

The Crown withdrew two firearm-related counts.

The complainant testified that the accused provided her with a pill for anxiety, after which she experienced severe heaviness and memory loss, waking up next to the accused with semen on her back.

The accused denied the allegations, presenting an alibi and challenging the complainant's credibility.

The court found the accused not credible due to inconsistencies, exaggerations, and failure to call corroborating witnesses.

The complainant was found credible and reliable, supported by expert toxicological evidence confirming lorazepam in her system consistent with her timeline and described effects.

The court concluded that the accused intentionally administered lorazepam to facilitate sexual assault.

K.D.B. was found guilty of sexual assault, administration of a stupefying drug, and breach of undertaking and firearm prohibition.

The accused, Julian Justinico, was charged with sexual assault and breaking and entering to commit sexual assault against the complainant, SD.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's conduct and statements at a party prior to the assault, and DNA evidence found on the complainant's genitals.

The defence challenged the admissibility of similar act evidence and the reliability of DNA evidence for identity.

The court found the accused's prior conduct admissible as an admission and for animus/motive, and concluded that the DNA evidence, combined with other circumstantial evidence and the absence of benign explanations for transfer, established identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of a 17-year-old complainant on December 17, 2014.

The Crown alleged that the accused attended the complainant's residence in the early morning hours and sexually assaulted her by touching her breast and vagina without consent.

The accused denied the allegations entirely.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility and found the accused's testimony unreliable due to material inconsistencies with his police statement and implausible explanations for DNA evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and found that the accused had both motive and opportunity to commit the offence.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The applicant, Gurpreet Ronald, sought a finding that a General Warrant issued under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code breached s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that evidence obtained from it should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The motion alleged material non-disclosure and misleading information in the Information to Obtain (ITO) the warrant, specifically regarding attempts to obtain DNA and the seizure of garbage.

The court found no material non-disclosure or misinformation, concluding that the information before the issuing justice was sufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

Consequently, the court found no breach of s. 8 of the Charter and upheld the warrant's validity.

The accused, Andrew Medford, was found guilty on all five counts of a criminal indictment following a trial without a jury.

The charges included sexual assault with a weapon (knife), choking with intent to commit an indictable offence, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, assault, and possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence.

The court accepted the complainant's testimony, finding that an initial consensual sexual encounter became non-consensual when the complainant attempted to withdraw consent.

DNA evidence linked the accused to the scene, and an eyewitness corroborated parts of the physical altercation.

The court addressed inconsistencies in witness testimony and the complainant's credibility, including her history of drug use and prior dishonesty, ultimately finding her evidence reliable regarding the essential elements of the offences.

The plaintiffs, Christopher McCullough and Nicholas Nossey, along with their Family Law Act claimants, sued the Hamilton Police Services Board and individual officers for damages arising from malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, and breach of Charter rights.

McCullough and Nossey were jointly charged with murder in 1990; Nossey was acquitted, and McCullough's conviction was set aside on appeal, with the Crown declining a new trial.

The court found that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for the arrests of both McCullough and Nossey, dismissing all claims for malicious prosecution, negligence, and false imprisonment.