Mary Ward

The accused, charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, brought an application during trial requesting the court to call a witness that the Crown had decided not to call.

The defence argued this was necessary for the discovery of truth, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Finta.

The court dismissed the application, finding that unlike in Finta, it was not necessary for the court to call the witness because the defence was perfectly capable of doing so and could utilize the Canada Evidence Act if the witness resiled from her prior police statement.

The Crown applied for a ruling on a voir dire that the accused's formal statement to the police was voluntary and admissible at trial.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to meet its burden because it did not call every police officer who had contact with the accused at the police station.

The court found that there is no rule requiring the Crown to call every officer, and based on the evidence presented, the statement was given freely and voluntarily.

The statement was ruled admissible.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm after running a red light and striking another vehicle, causing devastating injuries to two victims.

The offender had a blood-alcohol content more than twice the legal limit and was severely sleep-deprived.

The court sentenced the 72-year-old offender to 3 years in the penitentiary, a 10-year driving prohibition, and a secondary DNA order, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The offender was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm after striking her nephew in the head with a beer bottle in an unprovoked attack.

The Crown sought 21 to 30 days of imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or conditional sentence.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing and the criteria for a conditional sentence, concluding that the seriousness of the unprovoked, weapon-based assault required actual incarceration to satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 21 days in jail followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with break and enter, possession of stolen property, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eye-witness identification from a photo line-up and the doctrine of recent possession.

Two independent witnesses identified the accused: the homeowner who saw him leaving her property, and a construction worker who saw him dumping the stolen safe in a ravine.

The court found the photo line-ups were fair and the identifications reliable.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.