J. Caskie

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The core issue was whether the accused knew, or was wilfully blind or reckless about, the complainant's age, and whether he took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

The court found that the accused failed to take all reasonable steps, ignoring 'red flags' such as a message from the complainant's mother stating her age.

The accused was found guilty of both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, dangerous driving, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident after his vehicle collided with a tree and a garage door.

The accused argued he was involuntarily intoxicated, claiming he had taken a sleeping pill (Ambien) along with his regular prescription medications and a small amount of alcohol, resulting in 'sleep driving.' The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding he was not credible regarding his consumption of other powerful narcotics found in his system.

Applying the W.(D). framework, the court found the accused failed to rebut the presumption of voluntary intoxication and entered findings of guilt.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment.

At a bail hearing, the Crown and duty counsel presented a joint submission for release with conditions, including that the accused live at a specified address and report any address changes to the police.

The presiding Justice of the Peace rejected these specific conditions, finding them unnecessary under the Antic framework and the ladder principle, as there was no evidence they were required to address secondary grounds.

The court emphasized that justices are not rubber stamps for joint submissions and must ensure bail conditions are strictly necessary and not punitive.

The court also ruled that bald occurrence reports of uncharged incidents were inadmissible.