Lisa Carnelos

This decision concerns the prosecution of five members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior Hockey Team for sexual assault.

The complainant, E.M., alleged that after consensual sexual activity with Michael McLeod, she was sexually assaulted by McLeod and his teammates in a London hotel room.

The accused maintained that E.M. was a willing and active participant.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability issues in the complainant’s evidence, including contradictions with video evidence and other witness testimony.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt for any of the accused and acquitted all five.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the law of consent, credibility, and the use of myths and stereotypes in sexual assault trials.

This decision addresses the Crown's application to admit a text message as hearsay evidence under the principled exception in a high-profile sexual assault prosecution.

The court reviews the necessity and reliability requirements for hearsay, ultimately finding that the reliability threshold is not met and dismissing the application.

The ruling provides a detailed application of the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Bradshaw and R. v. Charles on the dangers of hearsay and the use of corroborative evidence.

The Crown sought to admit a text message sent by Brett Howden to Taylor Raddysh as past recollection recorded, an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court reviewed the requirements for admissibility, including reliability, timeliness, absence of memory, and the witness’s ability to vouch for the accuracy of the record.

The court found that while the first three requirements were met, Mr. Howden could not vouch for the accuracy of the text message, as he had no memory of sending it and could not confirm its truthfulness.

As a result, the application to admit the text message as past recollection recorded was denied.

This decision addresses a defence motion for a mistrial after a jury note alleged unprofessional conduct by defence counsel, raising concerns about jury impartiality.

The court reviews the legal principles governing mistrials, including the presumption of jury impartiality, the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, and the discretion to discharge jurors or declare a mistrial.

The court finds that the fairness of the trial has been compromised and grants the motion for a mistrial, emphasizing that such a remedy is reserved for the clearest of cases where no other remedy will suffice.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a complainant who was 13 years old at the time.

The accused, who was 18, argued he had an honest but mistaken belief that the complainant was 16 and that she consented to the sexual activity.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be fraught with inconsistencies and contradicted by an independent witness.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age, and failed to prove that the sexual activity was non-consensual.

All charges were dismissed.

Two young persons pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against a victim who suffered catastrophic injuries including traumatic brain injury with subdural hematoma, permanent vision loss, and severe psychological trauma.

The primary assailant inflicted repeated vicious kicks and blows to the victim's head and skull while the co-accused actively participated with strikes and taunts.

The assault was videotaped.

The court found both offences constituted violent offences under section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and imposed custodial sentences with probation, finding that non-custodial alternatives were insufficient given the severity of the offence, the victims' catastrophic injuries, and the offenders' poor compliance history with previous non-custodial orders.