Michael S. Puskas

This ruling addresses a Crown's Seaboyer application in a sexual assault case involving a young person.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of the complainant's prior consensual sexual activity with the accused to provide context for the relationship dynamics and discussions about consent, and to explain the complainant's reasons for continuing the relationship after the alleged assault.

The court, after a voir dire, found the evidence admissible, determining it had legitimate probative value for these purposes and did not improperly invoke the "twin myths" or cause undue prejudice.

The 14-year-old accused pleaded guilty to first degree murder after fatally stabbing a 15-year-old fellow resident at a group foster home.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that the maximum youth sentence of 10 years should be imposed, with no credit for pre-disposition custody.

The court accepted the joint submission, noting the horrific circumstances of the unprovoked attack, the accused's history of violent behaviour, and his significant psychiatric conditions.

The accused was sentenced to six years in custody followed by four years of conditional supervision in the community.

Two young persons were convicted after trial of robbery with violence committed against a peer on the first week of school.

The offence involved a premeditated attack on an isolated location where the victim was lured, assaulted, robbed of personal items and marijuana, and left with bleeding feet after being forced to descend metal stairs barefoot.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of three months (two months secure custody followed by one month community supervision) followed by two years probation, finding that the seriousness of the offence, the degree of participation, the intentional and foreseeable harm, and the need for denunciation and accountability warranted custody despite the YCJA preference for non-custodial dispositions.

The appellant appealed a conviction under the Provincial Offences Act.

On the scheduled appeal hearing date, the appellant's counsel requested an adjournment without prior notice to the Crown prosecutor, who had interrupted her vacation to attend.

The trial judge, of his own initiative, asked the Crown if it wished to apply for costs and ordered the appellant's counsel to pay $500 in costs personally, characterizing the conduct as showing reckless disregard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and vacated the costs award, finding that while the conduct was inconsiderate and worthy of adverse comment, it did not meet the high threshold for a personal costs order against counsel.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 276.2 of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of prior consensual sexual activity with the complainant, M.M., at a strip club.

The accused argued this evidence was necessary to explain the presence of his DNA on a vaginal swab taken from M.M. hours after the alleged assault and to challenge M.M.'s credibility regarding her earnings that night.

The court applied the two-step Darrach procedure, finding the accused's affidavit sufficiently detailed and his evidence credible enough to raise a reasonable doubt.

The court determined the evidence was admissible as it was a specific instance of sexual activity, relevant to an issue at trial (explaining DNA), and had significant probative value not outweighed by prejudice, upholding the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's post-offence conduct at a sexual assault trial.

The accused had failed to appear for a court date and fled the country for five years, claiming he left due to threats to his life rather than the criminal charges.

The court found the accused's explanation, based on hearsay and rumours, lacked probative value.

The court held that the evidence of flight was logically relevant to the accused's culpability and its probative value exceeded any prejudicial effect.

The Crown's application was granted.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5).

The Crown's case was that the accused was found sleeping in his vehicle against a guardrail on Highway 403.

The defence argued that the accused had been involuntarily placed in the passenger seat by a friend who was driving, and that the friend caused the collision and fled the scene.

The court acquitted on the refusal charge, finding the accused was unable to provide a proper breath sample due to his level of intoxication.

The court convicted on the care or control charge, finding that the accused's position in the vehicle and access to keys established a realistic risk he would drive while impaired.

The accused pleaded guilty to five omnibus fraud counts arising from a sophisticated debit card skimming scheme perpetrated against multiple financial institutions in Hamilton and Niagara.

The scheme involved installing card reader overlays and pinhole cameras on ATMs to capture debit card data and PINs, which were then used to create counterfeit cards for fraudulent purchases and cash withdrawals.

Total losses exceeded $86,000.

The court rejected conditional sentences despite mitigating factors including guilty pleas and first-offender status for one accused, imposing custodial sentences due to the sophisticated nature of the scheme, its extent, premeditation, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused were charged with aggravated assault arising from a tavern altercation and brought a pre‑trial application seeking a judicial stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They alleged that a negligent police investigation, including failures to identify witnesses, properly document blood evidence, and secure surveillance video, impaired their ability to make full answer and defence contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

The court reviewed the investigative steps taken by police and found that their decisions were reasonable in the circumstances, including the timing of witness inquiries, handling of potential blood evidence, and attempts to obtain video recordings from the tavern.

The loss of relevant video footage resulted from the actions of tavern management rather than police custody or negligence.

Because no negligent investigation was established, the court held that there was no Charter breach and a stay of proceedings was not warranted.