Intoxication

A young person was tried for multiple offences, including attempted murder and aggravated assault, after robbing a taxi driver and shooting him in the leg with a sawed-off shotgun.

The accused admitted to the robbery but claimed the firearm discharged accidentally due to intoxication and a malfunction.

The court rejected the accident defence, finding the accused intentionally pointed and fired the weapon, resulting in convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

However, the court acquitted the accused of attempted murder, finding a reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill, as the shot was aimed at the lower body through a seat.

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 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 was tried on a charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm arising from a first in-person meeting after online communications.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to inflict bodily harm, and further found significant reliability concerns in the complainant’s evidence arising from intoxication, memory gaps, inconsistencies, and lack of supporting physical evidence.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the test in Zhao, the court concluded that reasonable doubt remained on the issue of non-consent to anal intercourse.

The accused was acquitted.

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 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.

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.

Following a judge-alone trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual assault arising from sexual activity with a trainee bartender in a workplace washroom.

The court held the complainant was so intoxicated that she lacked capacity to consent, and further found the accused could not rely on any defence of reasonable belief because he took no reasonable steps to ascertain informed and voluntary consent as required by the Criminal Code.

The reasons also addressed the power imbalance between a manager and a subordinate employee, observing that any apparent consent would in any event have been vulnerable to vitiation by abuse of authority.

Applying the W (D) framework, the court rejected the accused's version and accepted the complainant's evidence on the core issue of non-consent.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference arising from alleged sexual activity with a complainant under 16 years of age.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court found no basis to reject the accused's evidence that the sexual activity was consensual, and held the Crown had not proved lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the complainant's memory gap and the absence of expert evidence on intoxication and capacity.

On the sexual interference count, the court held there was an evidentiary basis for an honest but mistaken belief as to age and that the Crown had not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain age in the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

Following conviction after trial for sexual assault, the court imposed a custodial sentence for intercourse with a complainant who was intoxicated, intermittently conscious, and incapable of consenting.

The court treated the complainant's vulnerability and the fact of unprotected intercourse as aggravating, while recognizing the offender's lack of record, work history, and community support as mitigating.

Immigration consequences were considered but not permitted to distort proportionality.

A sentence of two years less a day, less Summers credit, followed by two years probation and multiple ancillary orders, was imposed.

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 his conviction for second degree murder in the death of his mother, as well as his sentence of life imprisonment with 14 years of parole ineligibility.

He argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge by failing to put forward the defence of intoxication, inadequately instructing on discreditable conduct, and failing to properly instruct on the requisite intent for murder and the elements of manslaughter.

He also appealed the period of parole ineligibility as harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no evidentiary foundation for an intoxication defence and no reversible errors in the jury instructions.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 14-year parole ineligibility period was fit for a brutal second degree murder in a domestic context.

The appellant appealed his conviction and four-year sentence for sexual assault and breach of probation.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to adequately address a gap in the complainant's memory shortly before the assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficiently addressed the live issues of credibility and reliability, noting that the complainant clearly expressed her lack of consent during the sexual acts regardless of any prior memory gap.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the four-year term was within the appropriate range given the appellant's prior record and the circumstances of the offence.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault, and possession of marijuana following an altercation at an after-bar party.

He pleaded guilty to the drug charge.

At trial for the assaults, the Crown witnesses testified that the accused grabbed the first victim by the hair, forced her head to the pavement, and then punched the second victim when she intervened.

The accused and his mother testified that the first victim fell while he was pulling her purse and that he punched the second victim in self-defence after she kicked him.

The court rejected the defence evidence as concocted and unbelievable, applied the W.D. test for credibility, and found the accused guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the effect of intoxication on the presumption of intent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, endorsing the majority reasons of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The Court held that the trial judge adequately linked the evidence of intoxication to the possible application of the presumption of intent.