Kristen Thomas

The offender, Mitchell Vansnick, was convicted of sexual assault.

The court considered aggravating factors including the significant impact on the victim, violence beyond the inherent nature of the assault, victim's extreme intoxication and vulnerability, predatory nature of the offense, digital and vaginal penetration without a condom, repeated disregard for victim's lack of consent, and public location of the assault.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, positive pre-sentence report, stable employment, strong family and community support, and integral role in family care.

The court also considered the collateral consequence of vigilante violence suffered by the offender post-assault, giving it limited weight.

The primary sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a sentence of 35 months imprisonment, along with a 10-year firearms prohibition, 20-year sex offender registration, DNA order, and a no-contact order with the victim during incarceration.

The defendant, Nafi Selmanovski, was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against a complainant who was under 16 years old at the time of the alleged offences.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant and another former employee.

The defendant did not testify.

The court found numerous material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, both internal and external, which undermined credibility and reliability.

The court also noted a potential motive for fabrication by the complainant, who faced criminal charges involving police at the time of reporting.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The Crown alleged that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs on July 16, 2018, following a motor vehicle collision in London, Ontario.

The defendant was arrested after an Approved Screening Device test showed zero alcohol content.

A Drug Recognition Evaluator concluded the defendant was impaired by narcotic analgesics and cannabis.

The defendant testified he had not consumed impairing drugs prior to driving.

The court found that while the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle may have been impaired, the Crown failed to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted.

The appellant appealed his conviction on several offences, including unlawful confinement, assault, uttering death threats, mischief, and breaches of probation, stemming from two incidents in March and April 2016.

The appeal raised two main issues: whether the trial judge erred in limiting cross-examination of the complainant regarding a prior domestic altercation on the basis of the collateral fact rule or relevance, and whether the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

The appellate court found that the trial judge did not err in limiting cross-examination, as the collateral fact rule was not engaged and the questioning was deemed to be of too slight significance.

The court also upheld the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility, noting that the trial judge was alive to inconsistencies and provided reasons for finding the complainant credible, and that the core of her allegations remained intact.

The appeal was dismissed.