Intoxication

Jean-Claude Robitaille was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm after kicking a volleyball that struck Michelle Powell in the face during Canada Day 2023 celebrations at Ashbridges Bay, Toronto.

The court examined whether the kick was accidental or reckless/deliberate, focusing on the mens rea for assault.

Evidence showed Robitaille kicked the ball hard toward a group of people, causing significant injury.

The court found that the force and proximity of the kick established that the risk of bodily harm was either intended or objectively foreseeable, rejecting the defence of accident.

Intoxication was not a defence as assault is a general intent offence.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Jananan Sri of sexual assault based on the complainant I.C.'s testimony and DNA evidence.

The accused and complainant gave conflicting accounts of the sexual activity, with the accused claiming consensual sex in exchange for crack cocaine, and the complainant denying consent and describing coercion and fear.

The judge carefully assessed credibility and reliability, considering intoxication, memory gaps, and corroborating surveillance footage.

The court rejected the accused's version due to inconsistencies and accepted the complainant's account as credible and reliable, finding the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case involves charges of assault causing bodily harm against Mathew Kinsella and Alexandria Skeffington arising from a violent altercation on October 2, 2022.

The court analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, including the defendants' claims of self-defence and defence of another under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The judge found the complainants' testimonies unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies, while accepting Ms. Skeffington's credible testimony.

Applying the Supreme Court's recent guidance on self-defence, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' actions were unlawful, resulting in dismissal of all charges.

This decision addresses the acquittal of Cadence Kakepetum on a charge of aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code.

The court analyzed conflicting witness testimony, including that of a reluctant civilian witness, a co-accused youth who pled guilty, and an intoxicated bystander, alongside forensic evidence such as blood spatter and CCTV footage.

Applying the three-prong test from R. v. W.D. and considering the guidance from R. v. Hoohing and R. v. J.D., the court found reasonable doubt as to Ms. Kakepetum’s participation in the assault.

The forensic evidence and video corroborated her version of events, while the credibility of other witnesses was undermined by inconsistencies, intoxication, and self-serving testimony.

The accused was therefore acquitted.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals of Habibullah Daniel Ahmadi, who was convicted of second degree murder for the fatal assault of Sara Anne Widholm.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in using Ahmadi’s out-of-court statements as circumstantial evidence of guilt, failed to consider critical evidence on intent, and improperly relied on after-the-fact conduct.

The Court found no legal error in the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence, including the assessment of intoxication and intent, and upheld the 13-year parole ineligibility period.

The appellant, Sasikaran Thanapalasingam, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder of his wife, Tharshika Jeganathan.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s analysis or conclusions.

The court held that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the finding that the murder was planned and deliberate, and that the appellant’s intoxication did not impair his capacity to form the requisite intent.

The trial judge’s consideration of the evidence, including the impact of alcohol and alleged mental disturbance, was thorough and appropriate.

This decision addresses the issue of identity in a stabbing incident where the accused, Dwumo Amankwaah, was charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown withdrew the attempted murder charge but sought conviction for aggravated assault as a lesser included offence.

The court carefully analyzed the reliability and credibility of the victim's identification, corroborated by surveillance footage and DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation, staying the assault with a weapon charge under the Kienapple principle.

The judgment also clarifies the requirements for lesser included offences in attempted murder charges, particularly regarding aggravated assault.

This decision addresses the issue of credibility and reliability in a sexual assault trial where the accused, Benedict Okolie, was charged with sexual assault against Ms. A.A. The court carefully analyzed the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused, emphasizing the high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

The judge found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, particularly regarding her level of intoxication and behavior during the incident, which could not be reconciled with the video evidence.

The accused’s testimony was largely consistent, though some parts were rejected.

Ultimately, the court was unable to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

This sentencing decision addresses the conviction of Cengiz Ay for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The court considered aggravating factors including dangerous driving towards a residential home, structural damage, evacuation due to gas smell, and high intoxication.

Mitigating factors included the isolated nature of the incident, no prior record, and family support.

The judge imposed a global conditional sentence of 90 days (60 days for impaired operation and 30 days consecutive for refusal), house arrest with specific exceptions, a 24-month probation period with conditions including ignition interlock and counselling, and a 27-month driving prohibition.

The decision balances public safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted J.P. of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 14-year-old complainant, KJ.

The accused was found not guilty of administering a noxious substance.

The case involved complex issues of consent, intoxication, and mistake of age.

The court carefully assessed the credibility and reliability of witnesses, including the complainant, her mother, friends, and the accused.

Despite some inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, the judge found her credible on the key issue of non-consent.

The accused’s claim of honest but mistaken belief in consent and age was rejected due to recklessness in failing to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age.

The court also held that the complainant was not so intoxicated as to lack capacity to consent.

The accused’s failure to ensure explicit consent to sexual intercourse was critical to the conviction.

This decision addresses the issue of consent in a sexual assault trial where the complainant had no memory of the sexual activity due to intoxication.

The court carefully analyzes the circumstantial evidence, including the complainant’s testimony, prior consistent statements, and an online conversation between the parties.

The judge applies established legal principles on consent, capacity, and the evidentiary value of prior consistent statements, ultimately finding the accused guilty based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence proving non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, K.H., was charged with one count of sexual assault, alleged to have occurred while the complainant was unconscious.

The Crown presented evidence including the complainant waking up with her pants down and the defendant's DNA on an external genitalia swab.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to prove sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the lack of evidence regarding the form of the DNA or how the pants were removed, and suggesting other reasonable inferences for the DNA's presence.

The court, while acknowledging general principles of DNA transfer, found the evidence insufficient to establish sexual contact of a sexual nature beyond a reasonable doubt, noting concerns about the complainant's reliability due to intoxication and the absence of physical injury.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The appellant, Darryl Rusaw, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had convicted him of sexually assaulting the complainant S.S. after acquitting him on another charge.

Rusaw argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his post-incident conversation with a witness and erred in rejecting the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal found no fault with the trial judge's assessment of the witness's evidence and upheld the rejection of the mistaken belief defence, citing the trial judge's finding that the appellant took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent from the sleeping complainant.

The appeal was dismissed.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault causing bodily harm, assault, and forcible confinement.

The central issue was consent, with conflicting testimony from the complainant and the defendant.

The court found the complainant generally credible but noted issues with her testimony regarding intoxication and the sequence of events.

While the defendant's character was poor, his testimony on consent was clear and precise.

Applying the W.(D.) test, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding the absence of consent for sexual assault and the elements of assault and forcible confinement.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant, Perry Meeker, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant knew or was reckless regarding the lack of consent.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove lack of consent, as the complainant's testimony regarding her lack of romantic interest and memory was inconsistent with her prior communications and actions.

The defendant's testimony, which indicated an honest and reasonable belief in consensual sexual activity, was found credible.

The court concluded that the complainant had the capacity to consent despite intoxication and that the defendant's belief in consent was reasonable given the circumstances.

The defendant was found not guilty.

This is an appeal from a sexual assault conviction.

The appellant challenged the verdict, arguing the trial judge misapprehended DNA evidence, leading to an unreasonable verdict.

The complainant had no memory due to extreme intoxication.

DNA tests revealed the appellant could not be excluded as the source of DNA found on the complainant's breast, external genitalia, and vagina.

While the trial judge accepted non-sexual transfer for some DNA, she rejected the submission that there was a rational basis to explain the DNA found inside the complainant’s vagina other than direct contact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusion regarding the DNA evidence and affirming the reasonableness of the verdict.

A sentence appeal was also dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant, convicted of second-degree murder, appealed on three grounds: the trial judge's alleged errors in jury instructions regarding after-the-fact conduct evidence and the relationship between intoxication and accident, and the unreasonableness of the verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's comprehensive and fair instructions on after-the-fact conduct, which were vetted by the parties and relevant to the appellant's state of mind.

The court also found no reversible error in the intoxication instructions, noting that the jury was properly equipped to consider all evidence.

Finally, the court concluded that the second-degree murder verdict was reasonable, as there was sufficient inculpatory evidence for a properly instructed jury to reach that conclusion.

The defendant, L.R., faced two charges of sexual assault.

The first count involved sexual intercourse where the complainant alleged intoxication and lack of consent, while the defendant asserted consent.

The second count involved an alleged attempt to force oral sex.

The court analyzed the complainant's capacity to consent, considering her alcohol tolerance, a pre-existing sleep disorder, and video evidence.

The court found the complainant had the capacity to consent and did, in fact, consent to the sexual activity in the first count.

The court also found the second allegation highly improbable.

Consequently, both charges were dismissed.

The appellant, Jeremy Reddick, appealed his convictions for second degree murder and assault with a weapon, alleging errors in the trial judge's jury instructions concerning after-the-fact conduct, intoxication, and the permitted use of his spontaneous utterance "They jumped me." The Court of Appeal found that while some instructions could have been more thorough, they did not amount to reversible error or cause a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, particularly given the lack of objection at trial and the overall context of the case.

The appeal was dismissed.

Mr. Osbourne was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance.

He was found asleep in the driver's seat of his car with the engine running, while intoxicated.

The court first determined if the presumption of operation under s. 320.35 of the Criminal Code was rebutted, finding that Mr. Osbourne did not intend to set the vehicle in motion.

However, the court then assessed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Osbourne was in "care or control" of the vehicle, applying the three-part test from R. v. Boudreault.

Despite Mr. Osbourne's good intentions, the court found that his conduct (being highly intoxicated, in a running vehicle, on a busy street, without a reliable plan or phone) created a realistic risk of danger to the public, either by inadvertently setting the car in motion or changing his mind to drive while impaired.

He was found guilty.