Maryse Nassar

The accused, K.G., was charged with three counts of sexual assault against his former common-law partner, M.H. The allegations included non-consensual vaginal intercourse while M.H. was in a medication-induced sleep, forced fellatio, forced anal penetration during consensual intercourse, and non-consensual sexual touching after separation.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence.

The court dismissed the similar fact application, finding insufficient similarity between the alleged incidents.

The judge found significant credibility and reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, including bias, dramatic shifts in demeanor, inconsistencies, and the impact of medication on her memory.

While the accused's denials were not entirely accepted, they could not be entirely rejected, leaving a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, K.G. was acquitted on all three counts.

The Crown brought a bail review application under s. 521 of the Criminal Code, seeking to vacate a release order and have a bail hearing de novo for the respondent, Brandon Van Allen.

The Crown argued that the Justice of the Peace erred in law by failing to address submissions regarding the surety's contradictory evidence and gaps in the supervision plan (secondary grounds), and by unduly focusing on triable issues and the respondent's non-participation in an altercation when assessing public confidence (tertiary grounds).

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that the Justice of the Peace properly applied the test for release, assessed the surety's credibility, and was entitled to deference in her determinations, concluding that no error in law occurred.

This is a Crown appeal from the respondent's acquittals on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of various controlled substances, as well as possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, and the appeal grounds related to the trial judge's assessment of this evidence.

The appellant argued the trial judge considered the circumstantial evidence in a piecemeal fashion rather than cumulatively.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly instructed herself on the law regarding circumstantial evidence and applied it properly, considering the evidence as a whole and identifying limitations without assessing individual pieces in isolation against the reasonable doubt standard.

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no legal error was committed by the trial judge.

The court also clarified that misapprehension of evidence is a question of mixed fact and law, not appealable by the Crown on a question of law alone, and affirmed the trial judge's correct application of law regarding constructive and joint possession.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 4.6 kilograms of opium into Canada, concealed inside an air compressor shipped from Iran.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought three to three and a half years, citing the offender's status as a first-time offender and the recent cancer diagnosis of his wife as a collateral consequence.

The court found insufficient evidence to reduce the sentence based on collateral consequences and sentenced the offender to four years and six months imprisonment, along with a ten-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, a 34-year-old first offender with serious health issues including HIV and Hepatitis C, was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine, and possession of ketamine and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the accused sought a 9-month conditional sentence.

The court considered the accused's strict compliance with house arrest bail conditions for nearly three years as a significant mitigating factor.

The court imposed a 16-month conditional sentence to be served in the community, followed by two years of probation, finding this would satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence while promoting rehabilitation.

The accused were charged with possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime following execution of a search warrant.

Both accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of their section 11(b) Charter rights (right to trial within a reasonable time).

The total delay from commencement of proceedings to trial was 19 months and 22 days.

The court found that approximately 16 months of delay was attributable to state conduct, including Crown delays in vetting the Information to Obtain and significant institutional delays in scheduling.

The court found that the delay exceeded the 8-10 month guideline for provincial court trials and that the accused suffered some prejudice from the extended delay.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was convicted of possession of approximately 45 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at a restaurant and located drugs behind the counter.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two years while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of trafficking offences, the quantity of drugs, and the accused’s prior criminal record as aggravating factors, while also weighing mitigating circumstances including family support, stable employment, and prolonged compliance with strict bail conditions.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence alongside rehabilitation under s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court concluded that a strict conditional sentence would adequately address the purposes of sentencing.

The accused was sentenced to two years less a day to be served in the community under strict house arrest followed by probation.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police approached his parked vehicle for a wellness check.

After determining there were no health or safety concerns, the police demanded the accused's driver's licence, ran checks, and subsequently arrested and searched him and the vehicle, finding crack cocaine.

The accused brought an application to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging violations of his section 8 and 9 rights.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the detention was arbitrary and the subsequent searches were unlawful, characterizing the police conduct as a flagrant and deliberate disregard for Charter rights.

The application was granted and the crack cocaine was excluded from evidence.

The accused appeared for sentencing after a jury conviction for trafficking a small quantity of crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime arising from an undercover police “opportunity drug buy.” The Crown sought a custodial sentence of eight months, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles of sentencing under ss. 718–718.2 and 742.1 of the Criminal Code, the court considered the offender’s youth, absence of prior record, stable employment history, and the very small quantity of drugs involved.

Although trafficking in crack cocaine is a serious aggravating factor, the court found minimal risk of reoffending and concluded that community supervision would not endanger the safety of the community.

A conditional sentence was imposed to balance denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.