Phillip Millar

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay damages for sexually assaulting the respondent after administering the drug temazepam without her knowledge.

The appellant argued the trial judge ignored relevant evidence, provided insufficient reasons, and erred in applying the rule in Browne v. Dunne.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge conducted a thorough credibility assessment, provided extensive reasons capable of appellate review, and properly applied the rule in Browne v. Dunne because the appellant failed to put his version of events to the respondent during cross-examination.

The applicant, the Prime Minister of Canada, sought to quash a subpoena compelling him to testify at the criminal trial of the respondent, who was charged with assault with a weapon for throwing gravel at the applicant during a campaign event.

The court quashed the subpoena on three independent grounds: the respondent failed to show the applicant was likely to give material and necessary evidence; the subpoena was an abuse of process intended for political purposes rather than legal ones; and the applicant enjoyed absolute parliamentary privilege providing testimonial immunity while Parliament is in session.

The accused, charged with dangerous driving causing death after his commercial truck collided with a car, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings.

He alleged the Crown breached his section 7 rights by releasing the truck to its owner, thereby losing or destroying material evidence regarding the truck's weight and braking capacity.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the accused failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the evidence was lost or destroyed, noting the defence had multiple opportunities to inspect the vehicle and had in fact obtained an expert report.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following the hospitalization of his two-month-old son with severe injuries, including multiple bone fractures and brain trauma.

The Crown relied on expert medical evidence to argue the injuries were inflicted by intentional force.

The defence presented competing expert testimony suggesting the injuries could have resulted from a stroke, infection, and metabolic bone disease.

The court found the defence experts raised a reasonable doubt regarding the cause of the injuries and acquitted the accused.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 18-month conditional sentence for sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 10(b) Charter application regarding his right to counsel and misapprehended evidence in finding the complainant was unconscious and incapable of consenting.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant waived his right to counsel was supported by the evidence.

The court also held that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, including the appellant's statement to police and witness testimony, to reasonably conclude the complainant was unconscious.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant was convicted of historic sexual offences committed both as an adult and as a young offender.

The trial judge conducted a single trial for both the adult and youth indictments and admitted evidence across the indictments as similar fact evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the Youth Criminal Justice Act precludes the joint trial of adult and youth indictments.

The Court also held that the trial judge erred in his similar fact evidence ruling by failing to account for the 30-year gap and the appellant's age difference, and erred in admitting a videotaped statement without affording the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness on her demeanour.

The defendant Department of National Defence moved for a stay of the plaintiff's action pursuant to s. 91(2) of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-Establishment and Compensation Act.

The plaintiff alleged she was sexually assaulted by a military officer during a pre-enlistment physical examination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not a member of the military at the time of the alleged assault and that her injuries were not aggravated by her subsequent brief military service.

Therefore, the statutory bar under s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act did not apply, and the action could proceed.

Sentencing decision following convictions on both an adult indictment and a Youth Criminal Justice Act indictment for numerous historical sexual offences against children.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay duplicative counts, then imposed a youth sentence focused on accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration under s. 38 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, while emphasizing denunciation and deterrence on the adult indictment because the offences involved a child victim and breach of trust.

The court treated the absence of intercourse and threats, the offender's lack of record, and collateral consequences as mitigating factors, but found the repeated sexual assaults and resulting harm required substantial custodial terms.

A 12-month youth custodial sentence plus 6 months' supervision was ordered consecutive to a 4-year adult penitentiary sentence, along with multiple ancillary orders.

Summary conviction appeal from an impaired driving conviction under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the investigating officer arbitrarily detained him and unlawfully searched him when the officer stopped his vehicle while looking for another individual suspected of trespass and driving under suspension.

The appeal court held the officer had articulable cause and reasonable grounds to detain and question the driver based on the specific location, vehicle description, and surrounding circumstances, and that the subsequent arrest for impaired driving was supported by reasonable and probable grounds.

No breach of ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter was established, and the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) in any event.

Judge-alone criminal trial on historical sexual offence allegations spanning youth and adult periods, involving multiple complainants who were neighbours, relatives, daughters, or step-daughters of the accused.

The court admitted cross-over similar fact evidence between the youth and adult indictments, and also considered prior sworn evidence from another complainant, applying the similar fact evidence framework from Handy and related authorities.

After applying W. (D.), the court accepted the evidence of four complainants as credible and reliable beyond a reasonable doubt, but found a reasonable doubt on two adult counts because of a material inconsistency in one complainant's account.

Convictions were entered on 26 adult counts and all 26 youth counts, with acquittals on counts 27 and 28 of the adult indictment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine.

The Crown conceded that the guilty verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal.

The court noted it could not address the sentence for a separate marijuana possession conviction as leave to appeal sentence was not sought.