Intoxication

The young person was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged the young person engaged in non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the complainant while she was incapable of consenting due to marijuana intoxication.

The young person testified that the sexual intercourse occurred on a different day and was consensual.

Applying the W(D) principles, the court found significant inconsistencies in the evidence of the Crown witnesses regarding the events and the effects of the marijuana.

The court concluded the evidence left a reasonable doubt and acquitted the young person.

The offender was found guilty of sexually assaulting a sleeping victim while intoxicated.

The Crown sought a nine-month custodial sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence order and an exemption from SOIRA registration.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's high moral blameworthiness and lack of insight.

The court sentenced the offender to four months in jail followed by two years of probation, and denied the SOIRA exemption.

The offenders, both Indigenous women, pled guilty to assaulting police officers during an arrest for public intoxication.

One offender also pled guilty to a subsequent breach of undertaking.

The court applied the Gladue framework to determine the appropriate sentences.

The first offender, who had a dated criminal record and was the primary instigator, received a 270-day conditional sentence order.

The second offender, who was on probation at the time of the assault and subsequently breached her undertaking, was deemed unsuitable for a conditional sentence and received a total of 135 days in custody.

Youth criminal prosecution alleging sexual assault and sexual interference arising from sexual intercourse between two young persons in a vehicle after the complainant consumed alcohol and marijuana.

The Crown argued the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to intoxication and memory impairment.

Applying the capacity‑to‑consent framework from G.F. and the W.(D.) credibility analysis, the court found the accused’s evidence credible and concluded the complainant had the ability to understand the sexual activity, its nature, the identity of her partner, and her ability to refuse.

The court determined the complainant was not incapacitated and had in fact consented to the sexual activity.

Both charges were dismissed.

The offender was found guilty of break and enter and sexual assault after entering an intoxicated and sleeping co-worker's hotel room using a master key.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought 9 to 12 months.

The court considered the significant breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the offender's lack of insight, balanced against his pro-social background and the collateral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a global sentence of 20 months' imprisonment, followed by three years of probation and ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon after striking the complainant repeatedly with a knife in her vehicle.

The accused claimed self-defence, testifying that the intoxicated complainant became aggressive, punched the vehicle's interior, took her phone, and lunged at her.

The court found an air of reality to the defence and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not reasonably believe she was under threat of force, or that her response was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with break and enter and sexual assault after entering a hotel room where a highly intoxicated co-worker was sleeping following an office party.

The accused, a hotel maintenance manager, used a master key to enter the room.

A hotel employee discovered the accused half-naked on top of the sleeping complainant.

The court rejected the accused's explanation that he was using toilet paper to clean up the complainant's urine.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court found the accused guilty of both break and enter and sexual assault, concluding that his actions constituted an intentional application of force in circumstances of a sexual nature without consent.

The accused, P.L., was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault involving his 16-year-old great-niece, G.F. The incident occurred at P.L.'s home after G.F. had consumed alcohol.

The court found P.L. not guilty of sexual exploitation, as the Crown failed to prove a position of trust or authority or dependency.

However, P.L. was found guilty of sexual assault based on G.F.'s credible testimony, corroborated by DNA evidence and physical bruising, establishing that sexual activity occurred without G.F.'s consent while she was intoxicated and vulnerable.

In a second-degree murder trial, the Crown applied to admit three graphic autopsy photographs of the deceased.

The defence opposed, citing prejudicial effect and proposing alternatives such as limiting the number of photographs or presenting them in black and white.

The court applied the balancing test of probative value versus prejudicial effect, finding the photographs highly relevant to central issues including intent, self-defence, and a potential third-party suspect theory.

The court emphasized that modern juries are capable of dispassionate evaluation and concluded that the significant probative value of the photographs strongly outweighed any potential prejudicial effect.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to limit the photographs, as doing so would undermine their evidentiary purpose.

The Crown's application was granted, allowing the introduction of all three full-colour autopsy photographs.

The accused, Eric Richard Marshall, was charged with assault, sexual assault, mischief, and two counts of failing to comply with probation orders stemming from incidents on October 19-20, 2017.

The trial involved contradictory evidence between the complainant (PB) and the accused.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, finding the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated by external evidence (e.g., Facebook messages, 911 call, DNA evidence), while rejecting the accused's testimony due to significant inconsistencies and lack of believability.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all five counts.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his former girlfriend.

The complainant testified that the accused came to her apartment intoxicated, repeatedly asked for sex, and after she refused and went to sleep, she awoke to find him on top of her with her pajama bottoms pulled down.

A witness staying at the apartment corroborated the complainant's immediate distress and the accused's stated intention to have sex with her.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated, and found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault against his common-law partner and four other women, as well as assault and mischief.

The accused raised the defence of non-insane automatism (sexsomnia), arguing he was in a parasomnic state during the incidents.

The court rejected the sexsomnia defence, finding the accused's actions were voluntary, goal-directed, and often influenced by alcohol intoxication rather than a sleep disorder.

The accused was found guilty of the sexual assaults but acquitted of the assault and mischief charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose after pulling a knife during a bar fight while intoxicated.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the accused sought a conditional discharge to avoid a criminal record that could impact his employment and immigration status.

The court found that a conditional discharge was in the accused's best interest and not contrary to the public interest, given his lack of prior record, remorse, and the fact that no injuries occurred.

The accused was granted a conditional discharge with 24 months of probation.

The accused, Michael Baylis, faced a six-count indictment for various assaults, threats, and obstruction of justice stemming from two separate gatherings at a trailer park.

The court heard evidence from multiple witnesses, including the accused, and considered the reliability of intoxicated and "disreputable" Crown witnesses, applying the Vetrovec and W.(D.) analyses.

Baylis was found not guilty of assault on William Joel Jeffs (Count 1), uttering threats (Count 3), assault on Kenneth Bristol (Count 4), and obstruction of justice (Count 5).

He was found guilty of aggravated assault on Anthony Elias (Count 2) and assault with a weapon on Kenneth Bristol (Count 6).

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, and breach of probation following an incident with his former partner.

Both parties were highly intoxicated.

The complainant alleged the accused assaulted and threatened her, while the accused claimed he used force to restrain her from harming herself and to defend himself from her aggressive behaviour.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her intoxication and motive for revenge.

The court accepted the accused's defence of self-defence, finding his use of force reasonable and proportionate.

The accused was acquitted of assault and uttering threats, but convicted of breaching his probation order which prohibited contact with the complainant.

J.C. was charged with sexual assault and voyeurism (Counts 1 & 2) and extortion and sexual assault (Counts 3 & 4).

The court acquitted J.C. on Counts 1 and 2, finding insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant, H.D., was incapable of consenting or that the video was made surreptitiously.

However, the court convicted J.C. on Counts 3 and 4, finding that he extorted sexual favours from H.D. by threatening to post a compromising video online, and that H.D. did not consent to subsequent sexual acts due to duress and power imbalance.

Following a judge-alone trial on a charge of sexual assault arising from sexual intercourse in a university residence room after a fraternity party, the court found the complainant did not consent and was in a severely intoxicated, vomiting, and intermittently unconscious state.

The court applied the Criminal Code consent provisions and rejected any notion of implied consent, finding the accused took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent and knew, or was wilfully blind to, the complainant's incapacity and non-consent.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the complainant's evidence, rejected the accused's account as fabricated and implausible, and relied in part on the physical evidence of the torn costume to confirm the complainant's version.

A finding of guilt was entered on the charge of sexual assault.

The young person accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with a heavily intoxicated complainant in a parking lot.

The complainant had limited memory of the events but recalled being held down and repeatedly saying no.

DNA evidence confirmed the presence of the accused's bodily fluids on the complainant.

The court found that the complainant's advanced state of intoxication rendered her incapable of consenting, and that she had also expressed her lack of consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The offender was sentenced for sexually assaulting an unconscious, intoxicated friend and breaching a probation order.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's prior criminal record, the extreme vulnerability of the victim, and the offender's unaddressed alcoholism.

A total sentence of 39 months' imprisonment was imposed, reduced by 19.5 months of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a net sentence of 19 months and 2 weeks.

The appellant appealed her conviction for first degree murder.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's instructions on planning and deliberation, including references to capacity, may have confused the jury regarding the role of the accused's intoxication.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso and ordered a new trial.