Reasonable doubt

The accused was charged with six offences under the Criminal Code related to online child exploitation following his arrest at a hotel in Markham.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that the person he was dealing with was under 16 years of age.

The accused testified that he was confused due to multiple simultaneous conversations, phone technical problems, and message deletions.

The court found the accused's testimony generally not credible but determined that on the whole of the evidence, the accused's explanation that he confused conversations was reasonably possible, leaving a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with assault and assault with a weapon (knife) against her husband.

The trial involved conflicting testimony from the complainant and defendant regarding an incident that arose from a dispute over bedroom furniture.

The court found the complainant's evidence not compelling and harbored reasonable doubts about what actually occurred.

The court was unable to determine who assaulted whom during the upstairs incident and could not rule out self-defence.

Regarding the alleged knife assault, the court rejected the complainant's evidence as implausible, noting his unconcerned behavior after the alleged threat and the fact that no knife was ever recovered by police.

The defendant was acquitted of both counts.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation at a Law Ball event.

The Crown alleged the accused sucker-punched the complainant without provocation, causing a laceration requiring stitches.

The defence argued the altercation was a consensual fight that escalated from prior interactions during the evening.

The court found the complainant was not a credible witness, having been evasive and untruthful on numerous material points.

The court accepted the accused's evidence that the fight was consensual, arising from the complainant's inappropriate sexual conduct toward a woman at the event and subsequent verbal and physical escalation between the two men.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assault was unprovoked or that the accused intended to cause serious bodily harm.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with mischief under section 430(4) of the Criminal Code for wilfully damaging an exterior door at his ex-wife's residence on November 10, 2017.

The accused attended early for a scheduled child custody exchange and, after being refused early pickup, allegedly kicked and banged on the door.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony that the accused caused damage through persistent kicking.

The court found that while the accused's conduct was boorish and persistent, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wilfully or recklessly caused the damage.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from an armed robbery: two counts of robbery with a firearm, pointing a firearm, disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, and threatening death.

The Crown's case rested entirely on eyewitness identification of the accused as the gunman.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to numerous frailties including the brief duration of observation, the shock and fear experienced by witnesses, the concealment of identifying features by clothing and a bandana, the minimal words spoken by the gunman, claims of voice disguise, and contamination of the identification process through pre-police discussion among witnesses.

The court acquitted the accused on all charges.

The defendant was charged with "turn not in safety" contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Solina Road and Taunton Road in Clarington.

The prosecution alleged the defendant's right turn from Solina Road onto Taunton Road caused emergency maneuvers by other vehicles.

The court found that the defendant completed her right turn safely into a gap in traffic and had stopped on Taunton Road waiting to turn left when the collision occurred.

The collision resulted from vehicles two or three cars behind the defendant, not from the defendant's initial turn.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm arising from an alleged incident on June 12, 2016.

The complainant alleged the defendant raped her and punched her multiple times in the face, causing bruising and injuries.

The defendant claimed the sexual activity was consensual and that the complainant's injuries resulted from her falling while intoxicated.

The complainant passed away before trial, requiring the Crown to rely on hearsay statements.

The court found the defendant's testimony inconsistent, improbable, and contradicted by independent evidence.

However, due to material inconsistencies in the complainant's own statements and the absence of cross-examination to clarify them, the court found reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on both counts.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement arising from events at the complainant's residence over a ten-hour period.

The central issues were credibility and consent.

The complainant testified that the accused made unwanted sexual advances, blocked her exit, and engaged in non-consensual sexual activity.

The accused testified that all sexual activity was consensual.

The trial judge found both witnesses credible but was left in reasonable doubt as to which version of events was true, resulting in acquittals on all counts.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following a three-vehicle collision.

The central issue at trial was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood at the time of the collision, given that breath samples were taken more than two hours after the driving occurred.

The court considered whether it was appropriate for the trial judge to draw inferences from toxicology evidence regarding a readback calculation to an earlier time period.

The court found that on the specific facts of this case, with a narrow time gap between the proven time of driving and the toxicologist's opinion timeframe, and with no evidence of post-collision drinking or bolus consumption, it was appropriate to draw the inference that the accused's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit at the time of driving.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a three-year-old child.

The alleged incident occurred in a park and was witnessed by the child's mother.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the mother and the child's father.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found that while the Crown presented evidence of the alleged touching, there remained a reasonable doubt as to whether the assault occurred.

The court considered the fleeting nature of the alleged contact, the unlikelihood of such conduct occurring in broad daylight in front of the mother, the prior ill will between the parties, and inconsistencies in the witness's account regarding the reason for the breakdown in their relationship.

The accused was acquitted of the charges but placed on a peace bond with conditions of no contact.

The accused was charged with assault following an altercation at a hot dog stand at approximately 2:00 a.m.

The Crown alleged that the accused initiated the incident by mocking the complainant's voice in a homophobic manner, then punched the complainant in the face at the hot dog stand, chased him into a nearby laneway, knocked him down, and continued striking him until bystanders intervened.

The accused claimed the incident was mutual banter that escalated when the complainant pushed him down, and that he punched the complainant once in self-defence before becoming involved in a general scrum.

The court found the accused guilty, accepting the credible evidence of an independent witness and rejecting the accused's account as incredible and materially contradicted by reliable evidence.

The defendant corporation appealed its conviction under section 121 of the Highway Traffic Act for operating a commercial motor vehicle in excess of its registered gross weight.

The trial judge found the defendant guilty based on weigh scale evidence showing the vehicle weighed 31,510 kg against an authorized gross weight of 8,043 kg.

The defendant challenged the reliability of the weigh scale, arguing it required calibration.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, holding that weigh scales constitute prima facie evidence of accuracy under the principle established in R. v. Bland, and that merely raising the issue of calibration without evidence of actual inaccuracy does not create reasonable doubt.

The court dismissed the appeal but allowed the defendant to present sentencing submissions before pronouncing sentence anew, as the trial judge had imposed sentence without hearing from the defence.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault by wounding and uttering a threat to cause death following an incident in which she stabbed the complainant twice.

The Crown's case relied on the evidence of the complainant and a witness.

The defendant testified that she acted in self-defence after being thrown to the ground and pinned down by the complainant, who was about to punch her.

The trial judge found credibility issues with all three witnesses but determined that the defendant's evidence, while not fully believed, left reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances of the incident and the availability of self-defence.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from two separate incidents involving his wife: assault, unlawful confinement, choking, threatening death, and mischief on September 1, 2013, and three counts of mischief on November 3, 2013.

The accused pleaded guilty to some mischief charges but not guilty to the remaining charges.

The trial proceeded with testimony from the complainant and a corroborating witness, followed by the accused's testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's denials.

The court convicted the accused on all remaining charges based on the evidence that he was highly intoxicated and engaged in violent and threatening behaviour toward the complainant.

The accused was charged with trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime.

An undercover officer conducted three drug transactions with the accused over several months, purchasing what the officer believed to be cocaine.

The substance from the final transaction tested negative for cocaine.

The court found that while the accused clearly sold a substance held out to be a narcotic and received proceeds from the transaction, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance was specifically held out to be cocaine, as neither party ever explicitly or implicitly referenced cocaine during any transaction.

The accused was acquitted of the trafficking charge but convicted of possession of proceeds of crime.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant did not dispute the breath test readings of 110 and 90 mgs. percent but argued that bolus alcohol consumption—the rapid ingestion of a large quantity of alcohol shortly before driving—created a reasonable doubt as to his blood-alcohol level at the time of driving.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's evidence regarding the timing and quantity of alcohol consumed was found to be manifestly unreliable and inconsistent.

The court rejected the bolus drinking defence and convicted the defendant.

The defendant was charged with driving while suspended contrary to s. 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and displaying a suspended driver's licence contrary to s. 35(1)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown proved the defendant was a suspended driver on the date in question.

The defendant raised a due diligence defence, claiming he was confused about remedial measures requirements and had not received notice of suspension by mail.

The court found the defendant had been personally served with notice of suspension and that his actions fell short of what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances.

The court rejected the defence of officially induced error and convicted the defendant on both charges.

A sixteen-year-old was charged with seven offences relating to the unlawful possession of a loaded firearm found in a vehicle.

The Crown alleged the accused possessed the firearm either directly, constructively, or jointly, and alternatively that he was an occupant in a vehicle knowing there was a firearm.

The court found that while the accused may have known of the firearm's existence, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had both knowledge and control of the weapon.

The firearm was not visible or accessible to the accused in the rear seat, and his presence in the vehicle and subsequent flight could be explained by circumstances other than knowledge of the gun.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with two counts under s. 253(1) of the Criminal Code: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown's case relied on the accused's involvement in a motor vehicle collision with a police officer's vehicle, physical observations of impairment, and a toxicology report projecting the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the incident.

The defence challenged the reliability of the toxicology report's assumptions, particularly regarding the timing of the incident and the possibility of bolus drinking.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the essential factual underpinnings of the toxicology report beyond a reasonable doubt and that the physical evidence of impairment was insufficient to meet the threshold for conviction.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) and a Centre of Forensic Sciences report on a urine sample.

The court found that while the accused's performance on physical coordination tests and the presence of multiple drugs in his urine were consistent with impairment, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired at the time of the incident.

The lack of expert evidence regarding the specific effects of the detected drugs, the absence of evidence of impaired driving, and the accused's extreme fatigue as an alternative explanation for poor test performance created reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.