I. Denisov

The accused was tried on two counts of sexual interference involving two child complainants connected to a sports camp.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework, rejected the accused's exculpatory evidence, and found both complainants credible and reliable, with their accounts supported by disclosure witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

The Crown's application to use the allegations as similar fact evidence was dismissed because the incidents lacked sufficient connecting features to establish probative value under Handy.

Nevertheless, on a count-by-count assessment, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused touched each complainant for a sexual purpose and entered convictions on both counts.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside three co-defendants, applied for a separate trial.

He argued that a joint trial would be unfair because the Crown intended to adduce intercepted conversations involving his co-defendants that were inadmissible against him but potentially prejudicial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the intercepts did not directly incriminate the applicant and that any risk of prejudice could be managed through limiting instructions.

The court concluded that the pragmatic benefits of a joint trial outweighed the potential prejudice.

The accused, a personal support worker, pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual assault against vulnerable, severely disabled residents of a group home.

The offences came to light only after the accused voluntarily confessed to the police.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the accused to seven years' imprisonment, reduced to four years net after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, noting the egregious breach of trust balanced against the mitigating factors of the voluntary confession and guilty pleas.