Tony Paciocco

The appellant, Salim Richard Glasner, appealed convictions for six drug-related charges, including possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds.

The appeal was based on the trial judge's alleged failure to provide sufficient reasons and to properly apply the law of possession.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons sufficient and that the evidence supported the finding of possession and control for most counts.

However, the Crown conceded one count (possession of oxycodone) due to lack of evidence of the appellant's knowledge and control over the specific drugs.

The appeal was allowed for that single count, and dismissed for all other convictions and the sentence appeal.

Following a judge-alone trial on one count of sexual assault against each accused arising from an alleged non-consensual threesome, the central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and reviewed the complainant’s testimony against prior statements, medical evidence, nurse evidence, dating-app messages, and the testimony of both accused.

The court found multiple material inconsistencies and significant shifts in the complainant’s evidence, while accepting the evidence of one accused and much of the other accused’s account as credible and reliable.

The court held that, on the whole of the evidence, the complainant’s words and conduct as found by the court were not inconsistent with consent in law.

Both accused were acquitted.

The accused, A.J., brought an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity with the accused in a sexual assault trial.

The Crown and counsel for the complainant opposed the admission, arguing it was not relevant or significantly probative.

The court found the evidence admissible, determining it was not adduced to support "twin myths," was relevant to the issue of consent and credibility given the differing accounts of the parties' relationship, consisted of specific instances of sexual activity, and had significant probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice.

The court emphasized the accused's right to make full answer and defence and the need for a complete factual picture.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 23 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.

The court found only 28 days of defence delay and rejected the Crown's arguments that the defence implicitly waived delay or engaged in illegitimate conduct regarding disclosure and scheduling.

The court also rejected the Crown's argument that the case was complex.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the net delay of nearly 22 months, the court ordered a stay of proceedings.