Reasonable doubt

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of marihuana and MDMA, following a police search of an apartment.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance of the accused entering the building and their presence in the apartment when the search warrant was executed.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and found that the evidence reasonably supported inferences other than guilt, specifically that the accused lacked knowledge and control of the drugs.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and breach of bail conditions arising from a short-lived relationship with the complainant.

The Crown's case relied almost entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be highly inconsistent, contradictory, and in some instances, entirely fabricated, including a bizarre story about being threatened by the mafia disguised as police officers.

Applying the principles of reasonable doubt to credibility findings, the court concluded it was impossible to determine which material parts of the complainant's testimony were true.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of methamphetamine and codeine, following a traffic stop and subsequent search of his vehicle and residence.

The court found the accused guilty of simple possession of methamphetamine and codeine.

Regarding the cocaine, while the Crown presented evidence including 29.4 grams of cocaine, a digital scale, cash, and text messages, the court had a reasonable doubt about the accused's intention to traffic, partly due to his exculpatory statements to police and the absence of debt lists or cutting agents.

The accused was acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking but found guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of cocaine.

The accused, an adult firefighter, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against the 14-year-old daughter of a fellow firefighter.

The Crown relied on the complainant's testimony and electronic communications between the parties.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly when contrasted with the testimony of her friend, an independent witness.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that while the accused's denials were not entirely credible, the totality of the evidence left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with assault, forcible confinement, mischief, choking, and theft arising from a domestic dispute.

The court found the complainant's uncorroborated evidence regarding the choking allegation to be unreliable due to her history of manipulation and dishonesty under oath, resulting in an acquittal on that count.

However, relying on the credible and independent testimony of the accused's roommate, the court found the accused guilty of forcible confinement for blocking the complainant from leaving the bedroom, assault for knocking her down in the bathroom, and mischief for taking her phone to prevent her from calling for help.

The theft charge was dismissed as there was no intent to convert the phone.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, administering a stupefying substance, and assault against three complainants.

The Crown's case relied almost entirely on the testimony of one complainant, whose evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and noted a complete lack of corroborating forensic or independent evidence, such as security footage, taxicab records, or DNA.

Given the significant evidentiary gaps and credibility issues, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 for allegedly cashing cheques that should have been paid to a subcontractor's company for a commercial paving job.

The Crown alleged the accused registered a sole proprietorship with a similar name to divert the funds.

The court found the evidence of both the accused and the key Crown witnesses to be unreliable and inconsistent, particularly regarding the nature of their business partnership and the payment of materials.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement following an interaction with the complainant after a church service.

The complainant alleged the accused attacked her, choked her, and sexually assaulted her outside the church.

The accused testified that the interaction was consensual and related to faith healing, denying any sexual contact.

The court applied the W.(D.) test for credibility and found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including contradictions with video surveillance and prior testimony.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment following a brief sexual relationship with the complainant.

The complainant alleged that the accused forced her to engage in non-consensual anal intercourse in his truck, and subsequently sent her numerous unwanted and threatening text messages.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual assault, finding that the conflicting evidence on consent left a reasonable doubt.

However, the court convicted the accused of criminal harassment, concluding that his repeated, unwanted communications caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and obstructing police after officers observed what they believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction from her vehicle.

The accused testified she was retrieving a lost cell phone, and her boyfriend testified he had hidden the drugs in her car without her knowledge.

The court found the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding her knowledge of the drugs, resulting in acquittals on the drug charges.

However, the accused was convicted of obstructing police for actively resisting her arrest.

The two accused were charged with sexual assault following an incident in a hotel room.

The complainant alleged she blacked out from alcohol consumption and awoke to find one accused sexually assaulting her while the other was present, after having been assaulted by the first accused while unconscious.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding her memory loss unreliable, noting it conflicted with toxicological evidence and her behavior captured on video.

Both accused testified, with one claiming consensual sex and the other denying any sexual contact.

The court found the evidence of the accused raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted both men.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death and failing to remain at the scene of an accident after striking a pedestrian at an intersection in Ottawa.

The accused claimed he fled in self-defence because the pedestrian was acting erratically and touching his car.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as fabricated and found his rapid acceleration and fishtailing through a busy intersection constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The court also found the accused knew he had struck the pedestrian and fled to evade liability.

The accused was found guilty on both charges.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant following a drug deal gone wrong.

Both the accused and the complainant were crack cocaine users and provided conflicting accounts of the events, with the accused denying the assault and claiming a panic attack prevented consensual sex.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and found significant reliability issues with both principal witnesses' testimonies, including inconsistencies in the complainant's account and delayed disclosure.

Ultimately, the court concluded the evidence was sufficiently unreliable to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his former common-law partner's granddaughter.

The complainant, who was a child at the time of the alleged offences, testified to multiple incidents of inappropriate touching.

The accused testified and denied all allegations.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility, the court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to significant memory gaps regarding the alleged incidents and subsequent disclosures.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against a six-year-old complainant whom he babysat in 2006.

The trial, held years later when the complainant was 13, centered on credibility and reliability.

The complainant testified that the accused licked her vaginal area, while the accused denied the incident occurred and suggested she was malicious and untruthful.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the trial judge found the complainant's evidence straightforward and reliable despite minor memory lapses on collateral matters, and rejected the accused's evidence.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused, a pastor, was charged with sexual assault after the complainant alleged he touched her inappropriately during a private prayer session under the guise of a 'spiritual bath'.

The accused testified, denying the allegations and stating he had never heard of a spiritual bath and that his office door remained open during the session.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's testimony straightforward and unshaken, raising a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was tried on 11 criminal charges, including assault, attempting to choke, uttering threats, and criminal harassment, relating to his former partner.

The Crown's case relied almost entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies with other witnesses, prior untruths to authorities, internal inconsistencies, and contradictions with her own journal.

Consequently, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found crack cocaine, marijuana, and cash in a satchel in the back of a pickup truck he was driving.

The accused testified that he rarely drove the truck, which was primarily used by his son, and that he had taken it in a hurry without knowing the satchel was inside.

The court applied the W.D. principles and found the accused's exculpatory account credible, concluding the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the drugs.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with four counts of possessing explosive substances and one count of counselling mischief not committed, arising from his activities prior to the G20 Summit in Toronto.

Police found various chemicals and laboratory equipment in his home, which the Crown alleged were intended to make explosive substances.

The accused maintained the chemicals were for innocent purposes, including amateur rocketry, gardening, and testing the security system.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to create explosive substances, accepting that his interest in rocketry and other hobbies raised a reasonable doubt.

On the counselling charge, the court found the accused's tweets about design flaws in the G20 security fence merely described how mischief could be committed but did not actively induce or advocate the commission of the offence.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after the Emergency Task Force executed a search warrant for narcotics at an industrial building.

During the chaotic entry into a dark, crowded studio room, an officer observed a person holding a firearm and passed it to other officers, but did not arrest the individual.

The Crown relied on a chain of identity involving multiple officers and a distinctive pattern on the accused's pants to prove he possessed the firearm.

The court applied the W.D. test and found the identification evidence insufficient to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals on all charges.