3 total
Accused found guilty of historical sexual assault and sexual interference against a six-year-old child.
The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against a six-year-old complainant whom he babysat in 2006.
The trial, held years later when the complainant was 13, centered on credibility and reliability.
The complainant testified that the accused licked her vaginal area, while the accused denied the incident occurred and suggested she was malicious and untruthful.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the trial judge found the complainant's evidence straightforward and reliable despite minor memory lapses on collateral matters, and rejected the accused's evidence.
The accused was found guilty on both counts.
An aboriginal first-time offender who committed an intoxicated robbery with a toy handgun was sentenced to 30 days in jail and two years probation.
The accused, an aboriginal woman and first-time offender, pleaded guilty to robbery.
While heavily intoxicated and appearing to be in late pregnancy, she entered a variety store, brandished a toy handgun, and demanded money, obtaining $200 before fleeing.
The Crown and defence jointly submitted for 60 days incarceration followed by probation.
The court imposed 30 days jail followed by two years probation, applying Gladue principles to balance denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and restorative justice considerations.
The sentence reflected the accused's traumatic background, including residential school legacy, loss of children to CAS care, death of her son, and mental health struggles, while acknowledging the seriousness of the offence and the need for some custodial time given her lack of follow-through on programming while previously at liberty.
Accused found guilty of second degree murder after defences of provocation and intoxication were rejected.
The accused was charged with second degree murder following the stabbing death of his former intimate partner.
The accused conceded that he unlawfully caused the victim's death but argued that the offence should be reduced to manslaughter due to provocation and intoxication.
The court applied the principles from R. v. W.D. and the legal test for provocation, finding that the accused's actions were deliberate rather than sudden.
The court rejected the defences of provocation and intoxication, finding the accused guilty of second degree murder.