Kristy Wong

The accused, a physiotherapist, was tried on one count of sexual assault arising from allegations that he touched a child complainant's vagina during treatment sessions.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and the governing principles on assessing child-witness evidence, motive to fabricate, prior consistent statements, and reasonable doubt.

The trial judge found a strong motive to fabricate at the time of disclosure and identified material inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts about when the touching began, how often it occurred, and the nature of the contact.

In the context of the evidence as a whole, the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, and an acquittal was entered.

The accused was convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, and breach of a probation order following a brutal, premeditated attack on the victim in a schoolyard.

The victim suffered permanent loss of sight in one eye and other serious injuries.

The court imposed a sentence of 5 years imprisonment for aggravated assault, with 2 years concurrent for robbery and 6 months concurrent for breach of probation.

The court rejected the Crown's submission for 6-7 years and the defence submission for 4 years, finding that 5 years was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the victim's life-changing injuries, the premeditated nature of the attack, and the accused's lengthy criminal record, while noting the record did not include serious prior violent offences.

The accused, Ross Simpson, was tried on charges of aggravated assault, robbery, and breach of probation arising from a late-night attack in a Toronto schoolyard.

The complainant, who suffered permanent vision loss in one eye, identified the accused as one of his attackers based on prior acquaintance.

The police recovered a broken baton from the scene, which forensic testing revealed contained DNA highly likely to belong to the accused.

The court found the complainant's identification evidence credible and corroborated by the physical and DNA evidence.

Accordingly, the court found the accused guilty on all three counts.

The accused, Carolyn Burden, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after Legal Aid denied her request for a change of solicitor and dismissed her appeal.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Burden failed to prove indigence and that her right to a fair trial would not be materially compromised if she proceeded unrepresented, given her education and financial background.

The accused, an inmate serving a life sentence for murder, was charged with counselling another inmate to commit the murders of four individuals connected to his civil litigation.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of a fellow inmate, 'Joe', an unsavoury witness with a mixed reputation for honesty.

The court found Joe's evidence unreliable and the alleged murder plot too implausible and contingent to meet the threshold for the offence of counselling.

The accused was acquitted.