Reasonable doubt

The defendant, a maternal grandmother, was charged with assaulting her four-year-old granddaughter and breaching probation.

The Crown alleged the defendant caused visible injuries to the child on July 17, 2024, including a bruised eye, cut lip, and grab marks.

The defendant denied the allegations, attributing the child's appearance to a heat rash and claiming she had only spanked the child once.

The trial turned on the credibility of the child's testimony, which contained significant inconsistencies regarding how and when injuries were sustained.

The court found that while the child's account of prior abuse was unclear and unsupported by a FACS worker who had visited the home the day before without observing injuries, the inconsistencies in the child's narrative about the cut lip created reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted on both charges.

The appellant was convicted of one count of sexual assault, three counts of assault, and one count of uttering threats against his common law spouse.

He was acquitted of one count of assault.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred by artificially compartmentalizing the complainant's testimony and by relying on the complainant's lack of embellishment to bolster her credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach to assessing credibility and the weight of evidence.

The accused was charged with sexually touching a child on three or four occasions when she was approximately 11 years old.

The Crown alleged that the accused touched the complainant's breasts, buttocks, and vagina under her clothing while she was intoxicated at a firepit and subsequently in the basement and bedroom of the family home.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found both witnesses credible but identified significant implausibilities in the complainant's evidence, including that she would not be wearing underwear at age 11 and that each alleged incident would follow an identical pattern.

Finding these implausibilities created a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with three firearm-related offences: possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to s. 91(1), and possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized contrary to s. 92(1).

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence that a loaded handgun and ammunition were discovered by the accused's father under a mattress in the basement bedroom where the accused resided.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the firearm.

The court found that the accused's knowledge and control of the firearm was the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence and convicted on all three counts.

The accused was charged on an eight-count indictment with offences relating to his daughter, including assault, uttering threats to cause death, sexual touching, sexual assault, and trafficking cocaine.

The Crown withdrew one count and invited acquittal on another.

The trial proceeded with evidence from the complainant and the accused.

The court applied the W(D) test and found reasonable doubt on all remaining counts, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling but determined that the Crown had not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the remaining counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, and breach of a peace bond following an incident at a men's shelter in Toronto.

The complainant alleged the accused grabbed her by the waist and thrust his hips into her buttocks while she was mopping.

The accused claimed he accidentally bumped into her while trying to pass by.

The court found that the surveillance video was ambiguous and did not definitively establish a sexual assault.

The court also found reasonable doubt regarding the threatening statement, noting the complainant's limited English proficiency, her emotional distress at the time, and the fact that a nearby witness did not hear the alleged threat.

All three charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault following a 911 call made by his former intimate partner.

The complainant alleged that after a prolonged argument about their relationship, the accused grabbed her by the collar, threw her to the ground, and shook her while straddling her.

The accused denied the assault, claiming the complainant initiated physical contact by jumping on the bed and throwing his phone, and that she made the 911 call to get his attention after he repeatedly avoided engaging with her.

The court found the accused not guilty, determining that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court identified significant credibility concerns with the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding her interactions with police and her evasive answers during cross-examination.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE checkpoint stop on June 21, 2019.

The Crown presented evidence from three police officers and a qualified technician demonstrating clear signs of impairment at the roadside and breath test results of 131 and 113 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath test results on the basis that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel due to alleged language comprehension issues.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, rejecting the Charter application and finding no language barrier to the defendant's understanding of his rights.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, and driving while prohibited following a police chase of a silver Dodge Caravan on January 18, 2019.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the fact that the van was rented by the accused's spouse with whom he resided, that he was working at the building from which the van departed, and eyewitness descriptions from two police officers who had only brief glimpses of the driver during the chase.

The defence conceded that the driver committed the offences but argued the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver.

The court found that while the Crown proved the accused had access to and control over the van, the inconsistent and unreliable eyewitness descriptions, combined with the reasonable possibility that the accused could have given the keys to a co-worker, created a reasonable doubt as to the accused's identity as the driver.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting an acquaintance following a night out at a club.

The complainant testified that the accused pushed her into a bedroom, forcibly removed her clothing, digitally penetrated her, and attempted to force her to perform oral sex despite her repeated verbal and physical resistance.

The accused provided a contrasting account, claiming the interaction was consensual until he made an offensive comment about her body odour, which caused the complainant to leave.

A key witness testified to observing consensual physical contact between the parties prior to entry into the bedroom, which contradicted the complainant's account of being pushed.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) test and found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt based on the totality of evidence, including credibility concerns about the complainant's testimony regarding alcohol consumption and the corroborating evidence of the third-party witness.

The accused entered guilty pleas to three counts of assault and one count of assault on a peace officer.

He pleaded not guilty to assault on a peace officer, assault on a peace officer causing bodily harm, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court found that while the accused assaulted three Walmart employees outside the store after refusing to show his receipt, there was reasonable doubt as to whether he assaulted the arresting officer during the initial resistance.

The court dismissed the charges of assault and assault resisting arrest causing bodily harm.

The court found the accused guilty of possession of property obtained by crime based on circumstantial evidence that he had discarded a bag containing unpaid merchandise.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his younger sister between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006, when she was approximately 6 years old and he was approximately 15 years old.

The charges included sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code, and invitation to touch for a sexual purpose contrary to s. 152.

The trial turned on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The court found that while the complainant may have experienced trauma and repressed memories, her recollection was seriously impaired with significant inconsistencies between her trial testimony, her statement to Brampton police, and her earlier statement to Niagara police.

The accused testified that he never engaged in any sexual activity with his sister.

Applying the W.(D.) test, the court found that the accused had raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted him of all charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident in which a complainant alleged that a man grabbed her buttocks outside an apartment building on Sherbourne Street in Toronto at approximately 3:30-4:00 a.m.

The complainant followed the alleged assailant to a convenience store and identified him on surveillance video.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant's eyewitness identification.

The court acquitted the accused, finding that despite the complainant's detailed account and her absolute certainty, the cumulative frailties of her evidence, including inconsistencies regarding the assailant's build, the colour and design of his t-shirt, and the inherent dangers of eyewitness identification evidence, left the court in reasonable doubt as to the accused's identity as the perpetrator.

The Crown applied to have Courtney Carter declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence under section 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code based on a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour.

Carter pleaded guilty to ten charges including aggravated assault with a meat cleaver, mischief to public property, possession of weapons, carrying a concealed weapon, and multiple breaches of probation.

The court found that Carter met all statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation, including a serious personal injury offence, a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour demonstrating failure to restrain his conduct, a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, and intractable violent conduct.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence of detention in a penitentiary.

The defendant was found passed out in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle with a running engine and breath readings of 217 and 201 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

She was charged with impaired driving and having over 80 mg of alcohol while in care and control of a motor vehicle.

The Crown conceded that the defendant's testimony discharged the statutory presumption of care and control.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in care and control while impaired.

The court found that the defendant had no intention to drive, had entered the driver's seat only to close the open door and subsequently became ill, and had a credible backup plan to use Uber if necessary.

The court acquitted the defendant on both counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit on March 19, 2016.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The central issues were whether the Crown established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused operated the vehicle and whether he did so within the relevant time period.

The trial judge relied on circumstantial evidence, including the location of the vehicle on streetcar tracks in a tunnel, the accused's presence at the scene, his statements and conduct, and the timing of the incident relative to police dispatch.

The court found the accused guilty based on the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence establishing both identity and timing.

The defendant, an Operator-Refinery at the Royal Canadian Mint, was charged with theft of gold, conveying gold out of the Mint, possession of property obtained by crime, laundering proceeds of crime, and breach of trust by a public official.

The Crown's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The defendant stole gold pucks from the Mint by secreting them on his person and removing them through security checkpoints.

He sold 18 of the stolen pucks to Ottawa Gold Buyers for approximately $138,000 and used the proceeds to fund the purchase of a house in Jamaica and a boat in Florida.

The court found the defendant guilty on all five counts.

The defendant, a police officer, was charged with sexual assault arising from an alleged incident in 1986 involving a woman he had investigated during a traffic stop.

The complainant alleged the defendant contacted her early the next morning, came to her home under the pretext of needing additional information, and forced her to perform fellatio.

The defendant testified the encounter was consensual and involved only kissing and touching.

The court found both witnesses had credibility concerns but ultimately determined that while the complainant's version was more probable, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

Mohammed Karimullah appealed his conviction for impaired driving.

The appeal raised several grounds, including alleged factual errors by the trial judge, the rejection of expert evidence regarding alcohol impairment, and the failure to adequately address good character evidence.

The court found that the alleged factual errors were either insignificant or not palpable and overriding.

The trial judge was entitled to reject expert opinion, even if uncontradicted, and to use common sense in evaluating the evidence, particularly regarding the appellant's changed driving behavior.

The court also determined that the trial judge's brief reference to good character evidence was sufficient, as a judge is presumed to know the law, and counsel did not emphasize it in closing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with disobeying a stop sign by failing to stop at the intersection of Leighland Avenue and Kent Avenue in Oakville on February 9, 2011.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of Police Officer Ross Amore, who observed the defendant's vehicle entering the intersection at approximately 15 kilometres per hour without stopping.

The defendant testified that he stopped properly at the stop sign, and his passenger corroborated this account.

The court found that while the officer's testimony was genuine, it lacked significant reliability due to equivocal responses regarding other vehicles at the intersection and a lack of detail regarding the defendant's vehicle's approach to the marked stop line.

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant failed to stop at the marked stop line as required by the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was acquitted.