Sexual assault

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement involving a 13-year-old neighbour.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the accused by assuming guilt to establish the complainant's credibility, and failed to adequately consider whether the evidence left a reasonable doubt even if the accused's testimony was rejected.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and uttering threats against two former employees at his restaurant.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly consider evidence of collusion and animus among the complainants, and misapprehended evidence regarding the duration of one of the assaults.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the convictions related to the first complainant due to the trial judge's failure to critically analyze the evidence of collusion and animus.

The conviction related to the second complainant was upheld, as the trial judge's misapprehension of the assault's duration did not affect the ultimate finding of lack of consent.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and criminal harassment.

He argued the trial judge erred by providing supplementary reasons four days after oral reasons and by improperly assessing the complainant's delayed disclosure of the sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the provision of supplementary reasons and holding that it was open to the trial judge to accept the complainant's explanation for her delayed disclosure.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, raising three grounds: failure to consider exculpatory portions of out-of-court statements, applying uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and improperly admitting similar fact evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's treatment of the statements, noting they were only probative of the appellant lying to police.

The court also found the trial judge properly cautioned himself against uneven scrutiny and reasonably admitted the similar fact evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault against two young cousins, as well as his four-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence, finding no collusion between the complainants, providing inadequate reasons regarding his limited opportunity to commit the offences, and misapprehending medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or adequacy of reasons.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the four-year term was within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on the principle in Browne v. Dunn to discount his evidence and in finding him evasive during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in concluding there was a breach of the Browne v. Dunn principle, as the complainant was not cross-examined on significant contradictory details later testified to by the appellant.

The court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's credibility assessments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a sexual offence, arguing that the trial judge erred in charging the jury on consent and post-offence conduct, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The complainant testified she was passed out during the sexual contact, while the appellant claimed she initiated it.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the jury instructions and held there was ample evidence to support the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 conviction for sexual assault and his sentence of 4.5 years in custody followed by two years of probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the defence position, Crown submissions, the W.D. charge, or limiting instructions on discreditable conduct.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The Crown conceded the probation order was illegal and that the trial judge misapprehended the length of the appellant's prior sentences.

The Court set aside the probation order and reduced the custodial sentence to 3 years less 4 months for time served.

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 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 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 appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and that the trial judge misapprehended defence expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel's failure to prepare the appellant for cross-examination on his police statements, the ill-advised decision to call certain defence witnesses, and the failure to cross-examine the complainant on prior inconsistent statements constituted ineffective representation that prejudiced the defence.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in her treatment of the defence urologist's expert evidence by misapplying the burden of proof.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a seven-year-old child.

He argued the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and erred by taking judicial notice of DNA properties when concluding that the absence of his DNA on the complainant did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments.

While the trial judge did err by taking judicial notice of DNA persistence without expert evidence, the Court applied the curative proviso, finding the error harmless given the overwhelming credibility findings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered the neighbour relationship as a low-end breach of trust.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing there was insufficient evidence that he attempted to penetrate the sleeping complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion based on the appellant's actions and the complainant's testimony of experiencing sharp pain.

The court noted the complainant was not cross-examined on this part of her evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence and failed to address weaknesses in the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to find the appellant's version of events incredible and the complainant's testimony credible and compelling.

The complainant's evidence was corroborated by physical bruising and another employee.

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 appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to caution the jury against using the child complainant's section 715.1 videotaped statement to bolster her trial evidence, and that the Kienapple principle should stay the latter two convictions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury instruction was unnecessary as the videotaped statement forms part of the trial evidence, and holding that Kienapple did not apply because the offences have different legal elements.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple sexual assaults and his designation as a dangerous offender.

He argued that a saliva sample used for DNA comparison was obtained in violation of his Charter rights under s. 8 and s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant provided a valid, informed waiver that severed any connection between the prior s. 10(b) breach and the taking of the sample.

The court also found no error in the jury instructions regarding expert DNA evidence or in the trial judge's dangerous offender designation, which properly assessed the appellant's treatability and risk to the community.

The appeal was dismissed.