Maria Stevens

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to his former common-law spouse.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally slammed a washing machine door on the complainant's finger, causing a tear requiring five stitches.

The court found that while the accused deliberately slammed the door out of frustration during an argument, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to catch the complainant's finger or was reckless as to whether the door would injure her.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding the element of intent.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching arising from prolonged sexual abuse of a child over an eight-year period.

The court treated as aggravating the offender's breach of trust, the victim's age, digital penetration, attempted intercourse, oral sexual contact, extortionate threats to secure silence, a prior sexual assault record, and the significant victim impact.

Applying the proportionality principle in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code and relying on appellate sentencing authorities, the court held that a penitentiary sentence within the five-to-nine-year range was appropriate.

A five-year custodial sentence was imposed, concurrent on the second count, together with lifetime ancillary orders.

The accused was on trial for sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant testified through a Punjabi interpreter.

During the trial, it became evident that the complainant was capable of testifying in English.

The court noted that the right to an interpreter under s. 14 of the Charter requires a necessity criterion to be met.

Because the use of an interpreter materially interfered with the court's ability to make credibility determinations, and the trial was still in its early stages, the court declared a mistrial so the complainant could testify in English with a stand-by interpreter.

The court declared a mistrial in a judge-alone criminal trial for sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant, K.M., testified with a Punjabi interpreter, but it became evident during the trial that she had sufficient English proficiency.

This raised concerns about the necessity of the interpreter under Charter s. 14 and the trier of fact's ability to assess credibility through an interpreter.

The court found that a "needs" assessment for interpreter services was not properly conducted, and K.M. should have testified in English with stand-by interpreter assistance.

Given the trial's focus on credibility and the material interference of the interpretation filter, a mistrial was deemed the appropriate remedy to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained from his home computer, arguing police unlawfully searched and copied files containing child pornography without first obtaining a warrant.

Officers attended the residence after the accused’s spouse reported discovering child pornography on a computer that was currently running and potentially encrypted.

Concerned that the presence of encryption software and the possibility of remote access could result in loss of evidence, police copied the files and seized the computer before obtaining a warrant several months later to conduct a full search.

The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure and copying of the files, as there was a risk of imminent loss or destruction of digital evidence.

The police actions were also found to fall within their lawful duties under the common law and s. 487.11 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant pleaded guilty to kidnapping with a firearm, aggravated assault, and related firearms offences.

He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reduced the global sentence to 9 years to conform with the Crown's trial submissions, and granted 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, noting the lack of rehabilitative programs in remand.

The court dismissed arguments based on the parity principle and the youth of the offender, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms offences.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for a robbery conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge committed an error in principle by failing to advert to pre-sentence custody in her reasons.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced by 80 days.