K. Nedelkopoulos

The accused was charged with three counts of assault and two counts of forcible confinement against his common-law partner, arising from three alleged incidents between August 2012 and August 2013.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the complainant, who delayed reporting the incidents for over a year and had previously denied any history of domestic abuse to police during a separate incident in December 2013.

The court found numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's evidence, including her explanation for deleting photographic evidence of her injuries.

Concluding that the complainant's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals on all counts.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including robbery with a firearm, after robbing a taxi driver and a pedestrian using a BB gun.

The accused admitted to the acts but raised the defence of extreme intoxication due to a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.

The court rejected the intoxication defence, finding the accused possessed the requisite intent and that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code barred the defence of extreme self-induced intoxication.

However, the court found that the BB gun was broken and could not be readily adapted to fire, meaning it did not meet the definition of a 'firearm' under section 2 of the Criminal Code.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the firearm-specific offences but convicted of two counts of robbery.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of failing to comply with a recognizance prohibiting contact with a former intimate partner.

The breaches occurred on several occasions, including instances where contact was consensual and one incident involving attendance at a location where the complainant was present.

The court considered the offender’s prior criminal record for domestic-related violence and previous breaches of court orders, as well as psychiatric issues and limited rehabilitation prospects.

While some breaches were mitigated by the complainant’s consent or near-technical circumstances, the court emphasized the importance of enforcing recognizance conditions intended to protect vulnerable partners.

Applying the step principle and totality principle, the court imposed consecutive custodial sentences totaling seven months, followed by probation and a victim surcharge.