Kaely Whillans

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference relating to three historical incidents alleged by the complainant, who was a child at the time.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding two incidents in her bedroom lacked sufficient reliability to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals for those events.

However, the court accepted the complainant's evidence, corroborated by the accused's admissions to family members, regarding a third incident where the accused touched the complainant's vagina with his mouth.

The accused was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault for this incident, with the sexual assault charge stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, charged with attempted murder and other domestic violence offences, applied for a bail review after being denied bail.

He argued that trial delay, medical issues, jail programming, and the prospect of a section 11(b) Charter stay constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court also ruled on an evidentiary issue, holding that the Crown generally cannot cross-examine a proposed surety on admissions made by the accused about the offences.

Ultimately, the court found no material change in circumstances and held that continued detention was necessary on tertiary grounds due to the gravity of the offences and the strength of the Crown's case.

The bail review application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against his former common-law partner.

Both parties acknowledged that sexual activity occurred, making consent the sole issue at trial.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the conflicting testimony regarding the events.

Finding the evidence ambiguous and noting alternative explanations for the complainant's post-incident demeanour, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.