B. Bhangu

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused on multiple sexual offences involving three child complainants and on firearm offences arising from firearms found in his rural residence while he was subject to a weapons prohibition order.

The court admitted two complainants' prior video-recorded statements under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, assessed the evidence through the lens of credibility, reliability, and the reasonable doubt standard, and accepted the complainants' evidence despite delayed disclosure and some peripheral inconsistencies.

DNA evidence from underwear and medical evidence from a sexual assault examination materially corroborated one complainant's account.

The court also found constructive possession of rifles in a locked cabinet and held that keeping a rifle in a kitchen accessible in a home with children, and discharging a firearm from inside the house, constituted a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person under s. 86(1).

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter, interfering with a dead body, and possession of child pornography.

The manslaughter and interference charges stemmed from a 1978 cold case where the accused shot an intruder in his home and, with his father's help, disposed of the body.

The accused confessed to the police in 2012.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm and the 34-year concealment, against mitigating factors such as the accused's confession and guilty plea.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8.5 years, reduced to 27 months after crediting pre-sentence custody.

The accused brought an application to exclude evidence under ss. 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10 following her arrest for impaired driving after a single-vehicle accident.

The accused argued her statements at the scene were statutorily compelled, her arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, and she was arbitrarily detained without being advised of her right to counsel.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the statements were compelled, that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the constellation of facts, and that the brief investigative detention prior to arrest did not engage s. 10 Charter rights.

A young person appealed convictions and sentence arising from participation in forcing the complainant into a washroom where a sexual assault occurred.

The appellant argued that the trial judge applied unequal credibility analysis, misapplied the R. v. W.(D.) reasonable doubt framework, and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal court reviewed the trial record and found the trial judge properly assessed credibility, including rejecting the appellant’s evidence in light of corroboration from another participant and the complainant’s consistent account.

The court held the trial judge correctly applied the W.(D.) framework and did not reverse the onus or display bias.

Both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The accused, who is HIV-positive with an undetectable viral load, was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose her status to three different complainants before engaging in sexual activity.

For the count involving oral sex, the court found no realistic possibility of transmission and acquitted the accused.

For the count involving unprotected vaginal intercourse, the court found a realistic possibility of transmission existed despite the undetectable viral load, vitiating consent, and found the accused guilty.

For the final count, the court acquitted the accused because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a condom was not used, given the complainant's credibility issues.