Onelia Delgado

The offender pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of a former intimate partner.

The assault occurred while the victim was drowsy from medication in her own bed.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that the offender's guilty plea, deep remorse, lack of criminal record, and pro-social background were highly mitigating.

The court imposed a punitive conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served entirely on house arrest, followed by three years of probation.

The accused was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and choking following a sexual encounter with the complainant.

The complainant alleged the accused violently grabbed, bit, and choked her without consent, while the accused maintained the encounter was consensual 'rough sex' and denied biting or choking her.

The court admitted expert evidence from a forensic pathologist who testified the complainant's injuries were inconsistent with bite marks.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and corroboration of the accused's account by the expert.

The accused were charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences following a warrantless arrest and search of their vehicle.

The arresting officer claimed to have observed hand-to-hand drug transactions from a distance, but his testimony was found to be highly unreliable, inconsistent, and physically impossible in several respects.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, rendering the arrest and subsequent search unlawful and in breach of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the seized drugs and firearm under s. 24(2), resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

The applicant brought a Garofoli application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a telewarrant at his residence.

The court found that the police officer who swore the information to obtain the warrant was negligent and breached his duty to provide full and frank disclosure, including relying on non-existent surveillance and failing to disclose discrepancies in the confidential informant's information.

After excising the erroneous information and amplifying the record, the court concluded the remaining information was insufficient to establish reasonable grounds for the warrant, resulting in a s. 8 breach.

Applying s. 24(2), the court excluded the evidence, finding the officer's conduct reckless and that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.