Sexual assault

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against a young complainant.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, applied an uneven standard of scrutiny, and erred in admitting the complainant's statements to his parents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, proper application of the burden of proof, and that the statements were properly admitted under the Khan exception to the hearsay rule.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his explanation for DNA evidence, applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence of intoxicated witnesses, and misused evidence of vaginal bleeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference and that she did not err in her treatment of the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to consider the defence of honest but mistaken belief, misapprehending expert evidence, and applying uneven scrutiny to the testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the defence of mistaken belief.

The court also held that the trial judge properly used expert evidence to confirm the complainant's testimony regarding lack of consent and anal intercourse, and found no indication of uneven scrutiny.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings ordered under s. 11(b) of the Charter in a sexual assault case that took 35.5 months to reach trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the delay was extraordinary for a simple case and was primarily caused by the Crown's desire to join the prosecution with a second charge and institutional delays.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding of prejudice and concluded the delay was unreasonable and unacceptable.

The Crown appealed a 100-day sentence imposed on the respondent for sexual assault and forcible confinement of his wife.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit given the gravity of the offences, which involved significant violence and degradation in the context of a marital breakdown while the respondent was on bail.

The Court determined a fit sentence would be 21 months.

However, because the respondent had already served the 100 days, was doing well in the community, and supported his children, the Court declined to reincarcerate him and instead imposed a conditional sentence for the remainder of the 21-month term.

The appellant appealed his conviction for the first-degree murder of a 17-month-old child.

He argued that the trial judge failed to adequately explain the difference between intent and motive regarding the sexual component of the assault, and failed to properly instruct the jury on a possible break between the sexual assault and the fatal assaults.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge was impeccable and the assaults formed an uninterrupted continuum.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving his nieces.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider evidence of collusion and by applying a higher standard of scrutiny to his evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error regarding the collusion issue but held that the trial judge erred in relying on the appellant's evasive answers to ambiguous and irrelevant questions about whether he found his nieces attractive to reject his testimony.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, uttering threats, and sexual assault against his spouse.

The appeal centered on the trial judge's assessment of credibility, as the case turned almost entirely on the conflicting testimony of the appellant and the complainant.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny, holding the appellant accountable for every inconsistency while glossing over significant contradictions in the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding her statements to police.

The trial judge also misapprehended material parts of the appellant's evidence.

Concluding that the appellant did not receive a fair trial, the Court of Appeal set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, choking, uttering a threat, confining, and sexually assaulting his former partner.

The central issue at trial was credibility, with the complainant and appellant providing contradictory accounts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

The trial judge failed to explain how he resolved significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainant's evidence, and failed to adequately explain why he rejected the appellant's evidence, thereby impeding the appellant's right to meaningful appellate review.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence, made unreasonable findings regarding a nurse and toxicologist, and failed to consider the complainant's motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge provided lengthy, careful reasons and made reasonable findings.

The Court declined the invitation to reweigh the evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for threatening, sexual assault, and assault, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately explain the rejection of his evidence and failed to apply the W.(D.) framework to the threatening charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, demonstrated she evaluated all evidence, properly applied the W.(D.) principles, and made credibility findings open to her on the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault as a party to the offence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly caution the jury about the frailties of the complainant's evidence.

The complainant had admitted to lying to the police in two separate statements.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed a reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the legal implications of these inconsistencies and by providing an unbalanced charge that unduly promoted the Crown's case.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The young person appealed his convictions and sentence for assault and sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.D. analysis and did not engage in prohibited propensity reasoning.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

Because a concurrent one-day adult sentence resulted in the youth serving his eight-month sentence in an adult facility—contrary to the intention of all parties—the court reduced the sentence to time served (seven months and one week).

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and incest against his daughter.

He argued that the information was unsworn, that his Charter rights were violated because his DNA was not in the national databank prior to conviction, and that the trial judge erred in appreciating the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the procedural or Charter arguments and concluding there was ample evidence to support the convictions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three counts of sexual assault and his sentence of three years' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in her credibility assessment by transferring findings from an admitted assault charge to the disputed sexual assault charges without explanation, ignoring key evidence such as a letter written by the complainant, and failing to properly apply the W.(D.) test.

The appeal was allowed, a new trial was ordered for the sexual assault charges, and the sentence for the remaining assault and criminal harassment convictions was reduced to time served.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that overturned the accused's four sexual assault convictions.

The summary conviction appeal judge had found that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the exculpatory value of acquittals on four other counts and by limiting the cross-examination of a Crown witness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the acquittals had no exculpatory value on the other counts and that the trial judge properly limited cross-examination that lacked relevance and probative value.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's finding that he had anal intercourse with the victim was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had admitted to the act while the victim was extremely intoxicated, provided no innocent explanation, and there was corroborating evidence of the victim's subsequent soreness.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and failing to comply with probation, arguing the trial judge misapprehended crucial evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's testimony regarding the position of a sofa bed and whether he forgot his parents' honeymoon.

The Court concluded that these misapprehensions figured prominently in the trial judge's credibility findings and reasoning process, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed a nine-month sentence imposed on the respondent for sexually assaulting his developmentally delayed wife.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle by treating the absence of extraneous violence as a mitigating factor and by failing to properly consider the respondent's history of prior sexual abuse against the victim.

The Court held the sentence was demonstrably unfit, allowed the appeal, and increased the sentence to two years less a day, while also correcting the SOIRA order to 20 years.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences, including aggravated sexual assault and overcoming resistance by choking, arising from two separate brutal attacks on two different women approximately five weeks apart.

He was sentenced to a total of 22.5 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in refusing to sever the counts, failing to give a propensity instruction, and imposing a sentence that offended the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in his severance ruling or jury instructions, and that the sentence, while at the high end of the range, was fit given the callous nature of the offences and the appellant's lack of remorse.