2 total
Circumstantial evidence of identity sufficient to support committal for trial.
The applicant sought certiorari to quash an order committing him to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry on charges of sexual assault and sexual touching of a person with a disability in a position of trust.
The applicant argued the preliminary inquiry justice erred by committing him for trial despite the absence of direct identification evidence linking him to the alleged perpetrator.
The court reviewed the circumstantial evidence, including the complainant’s description of a staff member named “Terry,” testimony from a staff supervisor who knew the accused, and evidence that the accused had been suspended following the complaint.
Applying the principles in Arcuri and Charemski, the court held that the evidence constituted some evidence of identification sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to infer identity.
The application to quash the committal was therefore dismissed.
The accused was convicted of driving over the legal limit but acquitted of impaired driving.
The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit after driving through a RIDE checkstop without stopping.
The defence challenged whether the investigating officer had reasonable grounds for arrest and demand, whether the accused's right to counsel was breached, and whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found reasonable grounds for the demand based on the accused's dangerous driving behaviour and observations of impairment indicators.
No breach of the right to counsel was found.
The court found the Crown proved the blood alcohol charge beyond a reasonable doubt but dismissed the impaired driving charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment.
