Marie-Ève Talbot

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and uttering death threats against a complainant with whom he had a relationship beginning when she was 16 and he was 21.

The trial turned on credibility and the application of the W.(D.) framework.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, while the accused's evidence was inconsistent and improbable.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault on June 3, 2024 (when the complainant was intoxicated and did not consent), assault on April 23, 2024 (involving squeezing the complainant's abdomen and throat while she was pregnant), and uttering death threats on April 23, 2024 (stating the complainant and baby would die).

The court acquitted on the February 29, 2024 sexual assault allegation due to insufficient reliability of evidence given the complainant's extreme intoxication.

A youth offender convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and sexual assault sought a sentence review under section 94 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The offender had been sentenced to 30 days credit for time served, 11 months secure custody, 12 months open custody, and 12 months community supervision.

After approximately three months in youth custody, the offender was transferred to an adult facility when his application to remain in youth custody was denied.

The court found that serving the remainder of the sentence in adult custody would effectively impose a harsher sentence than originally imposed, contrary to the principles of youth criminal justice.

The court converted the remainder of the sentence to community supervision with conditions including house arrest for approximately nine months, followed by conditional supervision with relaxed mobility restrictions.

This is a historical sexual assault trial where the accused, R.D., was charged with sexual touching and sexual assault of C.H. between 1990 and 1992, when C.H. was aged 12-14.

The complainant alleged vaginal penetration, forced fellatio, and manual stimulation.

The accused pleaded not guilty, denying all allegations and presenting theories of fabrication related to a later consensual romantic relationship and subsequent harassment report.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the Crown's proof of the essential elements of the offences, citing credibility and reliability issues with all witnesses, absence of evidence, and lack of cogent evidence.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

This criminal trial concerned allegations of sexual assault and controlling behaviour by the accused against the complainant, who was a minor (16/17) at the time of the incidents.

The complainant alleged multiple non-consensual sexual acts, including vaginal, anal, and oral assaults, as well as choking, occurring within an otherwise romantic relationship.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible despite its scattered presentation and incremental disclosure, attributing these to her youth, mental health issues, and the abusive nature of the relationship.

The accused's testimony was entirely rejected due to numerous inconsistencies, fantastical claims, and attempts to tailor his evidence.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The Crown brought an application seeking an order pursuant to section 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit three police constables to testify remotely by video-link from the Sault Ste.

Marie police station rather than in person at trial.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that in-person testimony was essential given the nature of the charges involving direct physical and verbal interaction between the officers and the accused.

The court granted the application, finding that the video-link technology would not impair the accused's right to a fair trial, that the officers' status as front-line workers exposed to COVID-19 presented a legitimate safety concern, and that suitable safeguards could be implemented to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, sexual touching, and uttering threats against a 14-year-old complainant.

The court found significant inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the complainant's testimony, which could not be solely attributed to her youth or the traumatic nature of the alleged events.

The accused's testimony also had flaws.

Due to considerable doubt regarding the events, the accused was found not guilty of all charges.

Ernest McKinnon was convicted of sexual assault, unlawful confinement, voyeurism, and a lesser included sexual assault, along with two counts of breach of recognizance.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as breach of trust in a common-law relationship, the degrading nature of the acts, and severe victim impact, against mitigating factors including the offender's age, lack of related criminal record, and expressed remorse.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing principles for sexual assault.

A global sentence of four years incarceration was imposed for the main offences, with concurrent sentences for related counts, and time served plus one day for the breach of recognizance charges.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, SOIRA order for life, and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, voyeurism, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of sexual assault (Count 1), unlawful confinement (Count 2), and voyeurism (Count 3).

Count 4 (assault) was stayed as the act constituted sexual assault, which was not an included offence to assault simpliciter.

For Count 5 (sexual assault with a weapon), the accused was found not guilty of the weapon charge but guilty of the lesser included offence of sexual assault, as the black marker used was not deemed a "weapon" under the Criminal Code due to lack of intent to injure or actual injury.

The court assessed consent, credibility, and the "air of reality" test for mistaken belief in consent, ultimately preferring the complainant's evidence.