T. Balka

The youth accused was charged with sexually assaulting a fellow student at his home.

The complainant testified that she walked the accused home and went inside briefly, where he pulled off her clothes and had sexual intercourse with her despite her repeatedly saying no and trying to push him off.

The accused testified that the sexual activity was consensual.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, finding the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated by her extreme emotional distress and immediate prior consistent statements to friends that she had been raped.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as evasive and illogical.

The court found the Crown proved both the actus reus and mens rea of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a finding of guilt.

The applicant medical centre sought to vary a production order requiring it to produce a patient's medical records, including insulin pump data stored on a third-party website.

The Crown argued the centre had possession and control of the data because it had the patient's permission to access the website.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the centre did not possess or control the data on the third-party website at the time it received the order, as it only accessed the data during patient visits.

The application was granted and the production order was varied to exclude the requirement to obtain data from the third-party website.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to invalidate a search warrant and exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the basis that the warrant failed to specify the execution date.

The accused argued the omission rendered the warrant unconstitutional and sought exclusion of both the seized evidence and later intercepted statements alleged to flow from the unlawful search.

The court held that the absence of a specified search date was a technical irregularity that did not undermine the validity of the warrant, as the Information to Obtain and execution window clearly implied the intended search date.

No bad faith or negligence by police was found.

Even if a Charter breach had occurred, the court held the evidence would not have been excluded under the Grant framework.

The applicant sought standing to challenge the constitutional validity of a vehicle stop and the subsequent search of cell phones belonging to three other individuals.

The applicant argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages he had exchanged with one of the individuals, relying on previous jurisprudence.

The court rejected this argument, applying the Edwards factors to find that the applicant had no indicia of ownership or control over the phones or the text messages once sent.

The court concluded the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages on the third parties' phones and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search.

The accused, a deaf father, pled guilty to failing to provide the necessaries of life to his seven-week-old son.

The infant suffered multiple severe injuries, including a fractured skull and broken bones, caused by the accused's negligence.

The accused failed to seek timely medical attention for the infant.

The Crown sought 18 to 24 months' imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the mitigating factors, including the accused's guilty plea and lack of prior record, against the significant aggravating factors, such as the infant's vulnerability and the severity of the injuries.

The court concluded that a conditional sentence would not satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the accused to nine months' imprisonment followed by three years of probation.