Nicolas Rouleau

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault arising from events that occurred after he and the complainant separated from a group during an early morning walk following a party.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence, improperly relied on neutral circumstantial evidence as confirmatory, and engaged in uneven scrutiny when assessing the parties’ credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge carefully considered inconsistencies in the complainant’s evolving accounts and appropriately relied on corroborating medical and circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence and observations of the complainant’s physical condition after the incident.

The court concluded that the trial judge’s credibility findings were reasonably supported by the evidence and disclosed no reversible error.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The applicants, representing members of Ontario's Sinhalese diaspora, brought applications challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021.

They argued the Act was ultra vires the province and violated their rights under sections 2(b) and 15 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that the Act is in pith and substance related to education, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The court further held that the Act does not restrict freedom of expression, nor does it create a discriminatory distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds.

The appellant appealed a conviction for disobeying a court order under s. 127 of the Criminal Code arising from conduct outside an abortion clinic.

The alleged breach involved a civil injunction prohibiting certain activities within 500 feet of the clinic, including intimidation of patients and others.

The appeal court held that criminal liability for breach of an order requires proof that the accused violated a specific term of the order.

The evidence established only peaceful leafleting and silent protest, which did not constitute intimidation or other prohibited conduct within the meaning of the injunction.

The conviction was therefore unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

The applicant, convicted of disobeying a 1994 interim injunction by protesting outside an abortion clinic, sought state-funded counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for her application for leave to appeal.

The court found that her proposed constitutional challenge to s. 127 of the Criminal Code and her abuse of process argument were reasonably arguable.

The application for the appointment of counsel was granted.