Mark Fernandes

The appellant, Benjamin MacAdam, appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking and his sentence.

The appeal centered on the trial judge's handling of expert evidence regarding the quantity of drugs seized (112 grams of cocaine) and whether it was consistent with trafficking or personal use.

The Court of Appeal found that while the police officer expert was properly qualified, the trial judge erred by misapprehending the expert's testimony.

Specifically, the trial judge failed to adequately consider the expert's concession that the seized quantity could be consistent with personal use for a heavy user in a remote area, and improperly required the defence to establish hypothetical scenarios with proven facts to raise reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the Crown had not discharged its burden of proving trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt.

K.M. was convicted by a jury of sexual assault, sexual touching, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 13-year-old victim.

The court conducted a Gardiner hearing and found that K.M. had rubbed oil on the complainant's stomach for sexual purposes, participated in mutual masturbation, and had sexual intercourse with the complainant multiple times.

The Crown sought a sentence of six to seven years, while the defence sought one year incarceration plus three years probation.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's age, K.M.'s non-traditional position of trust, and the grooming behaviour, and mitigating factors, such as K.M. being a first-time offender.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a sentence of 66 months (five and a half years) incarceration, along with a DNA order and a 20-year SOIRA order, declining a weapons prohibition or public park restriction.

The Crown applied for an order under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code to permit the adult complainant, S.L., to testify behind a screen or outside the courtroom in a sexual assault trial.

The application was based on the complainant's expressed discomfort and anxiety at seeing the accused while recounting intimate and sexual history.

The court, considering factors under section 486.2(3) including the nature of the charges and the relationship, granted the order for S.L. to testify behind a screen, finding it appropriate and without prejudice to trial fairness or the accused's right to cross-examination.

The defendant, K.M., charged with sexual offenses, brought a motion for a mistrial, alleging violations of his Section 14 Charter rights and Section 650 Criminal Code rights due to inadequate simultaneous interpretation services during his trial.

K.M. claimed one interpreter, Mr. To, failed to provide continuous, precise, or contemporaneous translation.

The Crown argued K.M. was bilingual or, alternatively, that the defence failed to prove Mr. To's interpretation was deficient, citing poor audio recording quality and compromised objectivity of the defence's expert witness.

The court found that K.M. did require an interpreter but was not fully candid about his English proficiency.

The court dismissed the mistrial motion, concluding that the defence did not meet its onus to establish that the interpreter failed to meet the required standards, largely due to the unreliable evidence from the poor-quality recordings.

The delay caused by the motion was attributed to the defendant.

During a trial for sexual offences, the defence sought to cross-examine the 13-year-old complainant's mother about her history of sexual abuse, arguing it might be relevant to how the mother advised her daughter on protection against unwanted sexual overtures.

The Crown objected on grounds of relevance, asserting the complainant learned of her mother's history only after disclosing the allegations against the accused, and that an individual's prior sexual history is irrelevant to credibility.

The court ruled that the mother's history of sexual abuse was not relevant to the complainant's credibility or to any "street-proofing" advice she might have received, especially given the complainant's lack of prior knowledge of her mother's history.

The defence's request to question the mother on this topic was denied.