Martin Dionne

The defendant was charged with four counts of sexual offences against a complainant who was between 11 and 13 years old between 1993 and 1995, when the defendant was between 25 and 27 years old.

The charges included sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defence conceded that no consent defence under section 150.1 of the Criminal Code applied.

The trial turned on credibility and the burden of proof.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness whose testimony was corroborated by her friend's observations and attendance at the defendant's home.

The defendant's evidence was rejected as lacking credibility due to inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The Crown stayed one charge at the conclusion of trial.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing at a social event.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment for second degree murder with no parole eligibility for 13 years, and a concurrent 8-year sentence for attempted murder.

The court considered the unprovoked nature of the attack and the severe impact on the victims as aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and positive employment history.

During a murder trial involving multiple accused, an issue arose regarding a potential conflict of interest after counsel for one accused had previously represented a co‑accused on an unrelated impaired driving matter years earlier.

The court considered whether the prior representation created a risk of misuse of confidential information or an appearance of conflict under the principles in MacDonald Estate v. Martin.

Although the risk of prejudice was assessed as minimal and both affected accused were willing to waive any conflict, the court emphasized the unpredictability of a multi‑accused criminal trial and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The judge permitted counsel to continue acting subject to strict conditions, including written waivers, restrictions on cross‑examination of the former client, and prohibitions on accessing or using any prior confidential information.

In a homicide prosecution arising from a stabbing at a banquet hall, the Crown sought to admit a seven‑hour videotaped police interview of one accused.

During the interview the accused repeatedly asserted the right to silence and relied on prior legal advice not to speak.

The court found that the interviewing officer repeatedly urged the accused to speak, suggested that cooperation could improve his status from suspect to witness, implied a legal obligation to assist police, and undermined the accused’s confidence in his lawyer.

Considering the totality of circumstances, the court held that the accused’s ability to make a meaningful choice whether to speak was impaired and the statement was not proven voluntary.

The statement was therefore inadmissible under the confessions rule and would in any event be excluded under s. 24(2) for breaches of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with domestic assault and unlawful confinement arising from an incident on September 15, 2011 involving his wife.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, whose credibility and reliability were significantly undermined during cross-examination.

The accused's testimony was also found to be unconvincing.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The accused was charged with assault and two counts of threatening following an altercation with his sister at the family home.

The complainant alleged that after an argument over a cell phone, the accused struck her and pushed her down the stairs.

The accused testified that his sister was the aggressor, striking their mother, and that he only separated them without striking anyone.

The court found serious discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, including her failure to mention being pushed down stairs to police and inconsistencies regarding an alleged arranged marriage.

The photographic evidence showed more serious injuries to the accused and his mother than to the complainant, supporting the defence narrative.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges.

The accused was charged with assaulting his common law spouse contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant testified that during an argument, the accused struck her repeatedly in the face and head.

The accused denied striking her, claiming she fell during a mutual physical struggle.

The central issue was credibility.

The court found the complainant's account credible and reliable, corroborated by police photographs showing swelling around her eyes and facial injuries, and by the accused's own admissions regarding his actions that evening.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as neither reliable nor credible and found him guilty.

The applicant brought a motion alleging a violation of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

He was charged with five counts of assault with weapon, eight counts of assault, and one count of uttering a death threat, arising from his operation of a martial arts instructional facility.

The Crown scheduled the trial for March 2013, approximately 21 months after arrest.

The applicant's counsel sought earlier dates but none were available.

The court found that the delay from when the parties were ready to proceed (January 2012) to the scheduled trial completion (March 2013) was approximately 14 months, well above Morin guidelines.

Considering the applicant's significant prejudice to both liberty and security of the person interests, the court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault upon his wife, Jill Delima, with offence dates of March 30, 2010, December 19, 2007, and April 1 to August 1, 2001.

The trial proceeded over several months.

The Crown called the complainant, her brother, a Children's Aid Society worker, and a police officer as witnesses.

The accused denied all allegations.

The central issues were credibility and reliability.

The court found the complainant and Crown witnesses credible and reliable, and rejected the accused's denials.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts based on the totality of the evidence, which established assault beyond a reasonable doubt.