Laura Casey

The accused was tried on ten charges arising from a three-year common law relationship, including assault, sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 7 due to the police's failure to preserve video surveillance evidence, which was dismissed as the court found no unacceptable negligence.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court assessed the credibility of both parties, finding the complainant largely credible despite some inconsistencies, while rejecting much of the accused's testimony.

The accused was found guilty of seven counts, including assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats, but acquitted of sexual assault and two other assault charges where reasonable doubt remained.

Following trial on historical intrafamilial sexual offence charges, the court assessed the complainants’ evidence through the lens of credibility and reliability, with reliability being the central concern.

The court found material inconsistencies between preliminary inquiry and trial evidence of the child complainants sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt on the sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and incest counts.

The adult complainant’s evidence concerning a post-hysterectomy sexual assault was found credible, reliable, and inconsistent with any honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

A conviction was entered on one count of sexual assault, and acquittals were entered on the remaining live counts, including uttering threats.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The accused alleged Charter violations, particularly regarding her right to counsel under section 10(b).

The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the demand, complied with the "forthwith" requirement, and that the device was an approved screening device.

Although the officer did not fully comply with informational and implementational duties regarding the right to counsel, the court found no violation occurred because the right to counsel was suspended during the roadside screening test.

The accused clearly understood the demand and unequivocally refused to comply.

The court found the accused guilty.

The applicant sought to vary a lifetime section 161 prohibition order imposed in November 2007, requesting both a shortening of its duration and modifications to its terms to allow flexibility.

The applicant had been convicted in 1992 of sexually assaulting three boys and received a six-month sentence.

Between 2001 and 2006, he relapsed and committed sexual offences against five additional boys aged 8-13 years, resulting in a two-year penitentiary sentence.

The court found that while the applicant had made rehabilitative efforts including counselling and employment, successful rehabilitation had not been established.

The court declined to shorten the lifetime duration but granted limited variation to permit attendance at restricted locations when accompanied by a responsible adult with no criminal record, noting an apparent inconsistency between the prohibition and the probation order.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder for shooting his common-law partner in the head with a homemade firearm and burying her body in their backyard.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 17 to 18 years, while the defence argued for the statutory minimum of 10 years, supported by a jury recommendation.

The court rejected the jury's recommendation, finding it unrealistic given the serious aggravating factors, including the domestic context, use of a firearm, and extensive after-the-fact conduct to conceal the crime.

Applying the McKnight range for domestic homicides, the court fixed the period of parole ineligibility at 15 years.