Lori Anne Crewe

This decision addresses the credibility and reliability assessments in a sexual assault trial involving intimate partners, W.O. and M.M., who were married for 25 years and both served in the Canadian military.

The accused faced multiple charges of sexual assault and one count of assault.

The trial judge carefully applied the W.(D.) framework to evaluate conflicting testimonies, considering medical conditions, memory issues, and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The judge found the accused not guilty of the sexual assault charges due to reasonable doubt and credibility concerns but convicted him of a minor assault causing injury to the complainant's hand during a physical altercation over trailer keys.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate penalty for K.L., convicted of sexual offences against a minor, JB, who was a Grade 7 student intern at the radio station where K.L. worked.

The offences involved kissing and sexual intercourse when JB was 12 or 13 years old, and K.L. was in his early 30s.

The judge considered the significant breach of trust, the age difference, the victim impact, and K.L.'s lack of remorse and insight.

Despite concerns about possible cognitive deficits and a history of trauma, the court found no diminished moral blameworthiness.

The sentence imposed was five years imprisonment, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, a SOIRA order, and a lifetime prohibition on contact with minors under 16.

The decision emphasizes the principle of proportionality in sentencing sexual offences against children, referencing key Supreme Court of Canada authorities.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a conveyance with an excessive blood alcohol level.

The Crown relied on the statutory presumption and, alternatively, de facto care or control.

The court found that the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption by demonstrating she did not intend to set the vehicle in motion and had a concrete plan for her husband to pick her up.

Considering the factors for realistic risk of danger, the court found no such risk and acquitted the accused.

The defendant, G.S., was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, voyeurism, and assault against his estranged wife, A.H., following the breakdown of their marriage.

The Crown conceded the voyeurism charges during the trial.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both A.H. and G.S., noting significant inconsistencies and exaggerations in A.H.'s testimony, as well as the timing and context of her allegations (made jointly with her new partner, B.).

Despite finding G.S.'s denials of the assault and sexual assaults not entirely credible due to his admitted bitterness and intent to make A.H. uncomfortable, the court found A.H.'s evidence unreliable and insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

G.S. was acquitted on all remaining charges.