Laura Joy

The accused, a denturist, was charged with 17 counts of sexual assault against multiple female patients.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally rubbed his penis against the buttocks of the patients while performing denturist services.

The court admitted the evidence of the complainants as similar fact evidence, finding it highly probative of the actus reus and credibility.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence and found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty on 13 counts of sexual assault.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following convictions for aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and extortion.

The offences involved the offender confining and repeatedly cutting a victim over a drug debt.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal history, which included numerous violent offences and a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.

The court found the criteria for a dangerous offender designation were met under s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court concluded that the risk could be managed in the community after a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 12.5 years, leaving 4 years and 164 days to serve after pre-sentence credit, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his limited participation in the fatal beating of a victim.

The court considered the offender's background, including his exposure to systemic racism as a Black man, but found it to be of limited mitigating significance given the gravity of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of three years and 355 days.

The accused, charged with serious criminal driving offences following a fatal train-minivan collision, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings alleging multiple breaches of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The accused argued that the Crown and police failed to preserve evidence, including a witness statement, train black box data, train video, the minivan, and a 911 call recording.

The accused also alleged pre-charge delay, late disclosure, and reliance on faulty expert evidence.

The court systematically reviewed each allegation, applying the tests for lost evidence and abuse of process.

The court found no unacceptable negligence by the police or Crown, noting that much of the evidence was never in their possession or was lost in the normal course of business by third parties.

The court concluded there was no prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial and dismissed the motion.

The accused was driving a minivan with his four children when he failed to stop at a railway crossing and collided with a freight train.

Two of his children died and a third suffered serious injuries.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and bodily harm.

The court found that while the accused's conduct did not amount to the wanton or reckless disregard required for criminal negligence, his failure to heed warning signs and stop for the visible and audible train constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and bodily harm.

The three accused were charged with robbery with a firearm and related offences.

At their jury trial, the sole Crown witness claimed complete memory loss.

The Crown sought to introduce her preliminary hearing transcript.

The trial judge ruled the transcript admissible but subject to strong Vetrovec warnings.

Recognizing the severe prejudice to the defence, who had elected a jury trial expecting to cross-examine the witness, the judge allowed the accused to re-elect a judge-alone trial, finding the Crown's refusal to consent to the re-election was an abuse of process.

Sitting as a judge alone, the trial judge found the witness's uncorroborated evidence insufficient and acquitted all accused.