S. Scharger

The accused was charged with assault and breach of probation following an alleged domestic incident at a hotel.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the evidence of the complainant, who alleged the accused punched her in the face and head.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including her denial of interactions with the accused's mother shortly after the incident, her fabricated claim that the accused barricaded himself in the room, and her denial of telling a witness she fell on the stairs.

Due to these inconsistencies and concerns about her level of intoxication, the court found her evidence unreliable.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault of a 16-year-old complainant who was intoxicated and incapable of consenting after being supplied alcohol during a camping trip.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives and found multiple aggravating factors, including the complainant's age, intoxication, breach of trust, unprotected sexual activity, and the predatory conduct of the offenders.

The absence of prior records was mitigating, but the offenders' refusal to accept responsibility and lack of remorse significantly undermined rehabilitation.

Sentences of 3 years and 3.5 years' imprisonment were imposed, together with DNA, weapons prohibition, sex offender registration, and victim surcharge orders.

In a criminal sexual assault prosecution involving two accused and a teenage complainant, the court addressed the appointment of an amicus curiae shortly before the scheduled trial.

One accused had dismissed her counsel one week before trial, creating the prospect that she would appear unrepresented in proceedings involving sensitive evidence from a young complainant.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to appoint an amicus to assist the court, including potentially conducting cross‑examination of the complainant and advising on legal issues.

The appointment was made to ensure a fair and orderly trial and to minimize harm to the complainant while preserving the integrity of the proceedings.

Once the accused retained new counsel before trial commenced, the court discharged the amicus from further involvement.