Lori Anne Crewe

The offender was found guilty of assaulting his wife and uttering threats to cause death to her and their three children.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and three years' probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are paramount in intimate partner violence cases.

Finding that a conditional discharge was not in the public interest given the multiple offences, the presence of children, and the offender's attempt to control his wife, the court imposed a suspended sentence with three years' probation, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

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.

The accused, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, was charged with sexual assault in the military justice system.

After nine months, the military charges were withdrawn and new charges were laid in the civilian court (Ontario Court of Justice), purportedly in response to the Arbour Report's interim recommendation.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The court found that the total net delay was approximately 22 months, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that the transfer from the military system and the COVID-19 backlog constituted exceptional circumstances, noting a lack of evidence and a failure by the Crown to take reasonable steps to mitigate the delay.

The application was granted, and the proceedings were stayed.