Bailey Eva Louise Rudnick

The decision addresses whether the complainant D.P. may give recognition evidence identifying S.P. and Geza Gelencser in videos found on a laptop seized from Mr. Gelencser’s home.

The court finds that D.P. is in a better position than the jury to identify S.P. and Mr. Gelencser based on her prior acquaintance and specific knowledge, and admits the evidence.

The applicant sought a stay of sexual assault charges based on unreasonable pre-charge delay (4 years, 4 months), arguing police conduct constituted an abuse of process by allowing the complainant to dictate the timing of charges.

The Crown contended that police discretion, which considered the complainant's emotional readiness and willingness to participate, was reasonable and aligned with contemporary societal attitudes and victims' rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding no actual prejudice to the applicant's fair trial rights and concluding that the police conduct, while influenced by the complainant's circumstances, did not amount to egregious state conduct that seriously compromised the integrity of the judicial system.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting a nine-year-old complainant.

The appeal raised several grounds, including allegations of unequal assessment of evidence, consideration of un-tendered evidence, failure to assess reliability, impermissible inferences, misapprehension of motive evidence, and incorrect application of the burden of proof.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility and reliability assessments were entitled to deference and that no errors in law or fact were made that would warrant overturning the conviction.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred on July 27, 2016 in Sioux Lookout.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who alleged that the accused forced him to perform oral sex near a church.

The court found that despite corroborating evidence of the complainant's distressed state and DNA evidence showing multiple contributors to samples, the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant credibility issues, timing inconsistencies, problematic identification evidence, and contradictions in the complainant's account.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with care and control while blood alcohol exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

Police observed the accused in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle in a hotel parking lot at 2:18 a.m.

The accused was extremely intoxicated.

The court found that although the accused had rebutted the presumption under section 258 of the Criminal Code, he did not have actual care and control of the motor vehicle.

The accused had given his keys to a friend while sober, had called a taxi, and entered the vehicle only to retrieve personal items.

The momentary activation of the turn signal and brake lights did not create a realistic risk of danger.

The accused was acquitted on both charges.