Sexual assault

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application seeking a declaration that text messages between himself and the complainant were not 'records' under section 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The messages primarily involved the complainant asking the accused for money to purchase a property and expressing frustration.

Applying the framework from R. v. J.J., the court found that the messages did not contain highly sensitive personal information going to the complainant's biographical core.

The application was granted, and the court declared the text messages were not records.

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code seeking an order to allow the complainant to testify at trial by closed-circuit television (CCTV).

The accused opposed the application.

The court considered the factors under s. 486.2(3) and found that the complainant, a mature and articulate adult without disabilities, was capable of providing a full and candid account of the allegations in open court.

The court noted that the complainant had previously participated in family court proceedings with the accused in the same courtroom without incident.

The application was dismissed, with the court noting that pauses or breaks would be available to the complainant if needed during her testimony.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code to adduce text messages exchanged with the complainant before and after the alleged offence.

The accused argued the sexualized messages formed part of the subject matter of the charge or were otherwise admissible to show the complainant's state of mind and to challenge her credibility.

The court held that the messages did not form part of the subject matter of the charge and were subject to the s. 276 screening regime.

The court ruled the messages were inadmissible to show the complainant's state of mind regarding consent, as this relied on myth-based reasoning.

However, certain messages were admitted for the limited purpose of exploring material inconsistencies in the complainant's preliminary hearing evidence.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, unlawful confinement, choking with intent, assault causing bodily harm, and sexual assault against his former girlfriend.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the core details of the assault and sexual assault to be credible and reliable, despite some inconsistencies and delayed disclosure.

The accused was found guilty of unlawful confinement, assault causing bodily harm, and sexual assault, but not guilty of attempted murder and choking with intent, as the Crown failed to prove the requisite intent for attempted murder and the choking was considered part of the assault.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after allegedly anally penetrating the complainant while the complainant was asleep and highly intoxicated.

The complainant had travelled to meet a woman from an online dating app, became heavily intoxicated, and fell asleep in her bed.

The accused, a friend of the woman, entered the home and engaged in sexual acts with the complainant.

The court rejected the accused's claim of communicated consent, finding the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to intoxication and sleep, and that the accused was reckless or wilfully blind to this lack of capacity.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, charged with sexual assault against his former spouse, sought directions on whether affidavits filed by the complainant in their family law proceedings constituted 'records' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued the affidavits contained personal information and required scrutiny under the s. 278 regime.

The court held that the affidavits were not records, as they were voluntarily filed in public adversarial proceedings, meaning the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in them.

Consequently, a s. 278.93 application was not required for their use.

Prior to a jury trial for sexual assault, the defence brought several evidentiary motions.

The defence sought to exclude evidence of the accused's prior sexual communications with a complainant, renew an application for severance of counts, and exclude a PowerPoint presentation prepared by the Crown's expert witness on the neurobiology of trauma.

The court admitted the communications evidence, finding it essential to the narrative and the Crown's similar fact application.

The court dismissed the renewed severance application, concluding the accused's intention to testify did not undermine the viability of the similar fact evidence.

The court permitted the expert to use the PowerPoint presentation with specific modifications to prevent prejudice.

Finally, the court expanded the opening jury instructions to address nonconscious bias and false assumptions regarding consent.

The offender was found guilty of sexually assaulting his intimate partner while she was asleep.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4 years, while the defence sought 2 to 2.5 years.

The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal record, and the mitigating factor of a severe assault the offender suffered while in pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdowns.

The applicant, facing multiple charges including sexual assault and attempted child abduction, applied for a review of his detention after spending 911 days in pre-trial custody.

The court found that the significant passage of time, combined with the harsh conditions of pre-trial detention during the COVID-19 pandemic, constituted a material change in circumstances triggering jurisdiction for a review.

The court concluded that a stringent release plan, including house arrest, a $100,000 surety, and GPS ankle monitoring, sufficiently attenuated the risks to public safety and maintained confidence in the administration of justice.

The detention order was vacated and the applicant was released on strict conditions.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault following an encounter with a woman he met on a dating app.

The complainant alleged she was drugged and sexually assaulted at the accused's condo.

The accused, who represented himself, testified that the encounter was consensual in its non-sexual aspects and that no sexual activity occurred, citing his severe physical and medical limitations.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework and found the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and logic, while the accused testified credibly.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following a first date arranged through an online dating site.

The complainant testified that she became ill after consuming wine, fell asleep, and awoke to the accused having unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her consent.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated the sexual activity and raised the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding he took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent after an initial rejection earlier in the evening.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence in a sexual assault trial where the complainant allegedly lacked the capacity to consent due to intellectual disabilities.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from another witness alleging the accused provided her with drugs before engaging in non-consensual sex.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the dissimilarities between the two scenarios outweighed the similarities, and the prejudicial effect of the evidence significantly outweighed its probative value.

The accused, charged with sexual and simple assault against his ex-wife, brought a Stage 1 application under s. 278.93(4) of the Criminal Code to admit the complainant's medical records and evidence of prior consensual sexual activity.

The court found that the complainant's signed police release form did not constitute a valid waiver of her reasonable expectation of privacy, meaning the medical records remained subject to the s. 278 regime.

The court also held that evidence of post-separation consensual sexual activity was capable of being admissible to show ongoing association, rather than relying on twin-myth reasoning.

Both the medical records and sexual activity evidence were permitted to proceed to a Stage 2 hearing.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, mischief, and breach of recognizance against his former intimate partner.

The trial turned on credibility, with the complainant alleging non-consensual sexual acts and physical abuse, while the accused denied the sexual assaults and claimed the physical altercations were justified or exaggerated.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence and accepted the complainant's testimony regarding the physical assaults and the first sexual assault.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the second sexual assault due to inconsistencies in the complainant's explanation for delayed reporting.

The accused was found guilty on seven counts and acquitted on one count of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with a developmentally delayed and visually impaired resident at a rest home.

The central issue was whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity.

The court found that the complainant's initial statements to staff indicated the encounter was consensual, and she only alleged assault after her mother arrived and reacted angrily.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that the evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding consent, resulting in an acquittal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and a former instructor/photographer, Bruce Monk.

The plaintiffs alleged that Monk took intimate photographs of students in private settings and disseminated them without consent, constituting sexual assault, breach of fiduciary duty, and invasion of privacy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action, there was an identifiable class, and there were 23 common issues.

The court also found that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure and that the representative plaintiffs were suitable.

The certification motion was granted.

The prosecution brought an application to elicit similar act evidence from a prior incident where the accused was originally charged with sexual assault but pleaded guilty to common assault.

The prosecution sought to call the prior complainant to testify that the assault was sexual in nature.

The court held that issue estoppel applies equally to acquittals flowing from a trial and those resulting from a guilty plea.

Because the accused was acquitted of sexual assault in the prior proceeding, the absence of a sexual element was conclusively determined in his favour.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision in which the judge refused to impose an order under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) following the respondent's guilty plea to sexual assault.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge committed a jurisdictional error, as the Criminal Code mandates a SOIRA order for designated offences, including sexual assault, leaving no discretion to refuse.

The court granted certiorari to quash the original order and imposed a 10-year SOIRA order.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to the evidence, misapprehended his evidence, and reversed the burden of proof.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference, there was no misapprehension of evidence, and the trial judge's approach to the complainant's inconsistencies was measured and fair.

The court also found no reversal of the burden of proof regarding the Agreed Statement of Fact.

The offender was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference against a 15-year-old victim.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to conditionally stay the sexual assault charge, finding both offences arose from the same transaction.

Following coordinate decisions, the court held the mandatory minimum sentence for sexual interference was of no force or effect.

The offender was sentenced to 9 months' incarceration and 18 months' probation, with the court declining to impose a broad s. 161 prohibition order due to the isolated nature of the offence and low risk to children generally.