Matthew Raymond Caputo

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion to be allowed to sit at counsel table during his trial instead of in the prisoner's dock.

He argued that sitting in the dock undermines the presumption of innocence and fair trial rights, citing the Guy Paul Morin inquiry report and potential prejudice as an Indigenous person.

The Crown argued for the customary placement in the dock for visibility and jury observation, suggesting a jury instruction could mitigate prejudice.

The court, balancing fair trial rights, communication needs, and the absence of security concerns, granted the application, allowing the accused to sit at counsel table.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation for historical offences committed between 1994 and 1996 against a 14-to-16-year-old employee.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that exceptional circumstances existed, including the offender's own history of childhood sexual abuse, his chronic mental health issues, his prosocial life, and his role as a caregiver for his elderly mother.

The court imposed a two-year conditional sentence followed by two years of probation, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

The offender, Joshua Gauthier, was convicted of aggravated assault.

At the sentencing hearing, the court dismissed his application to enter a conviction for assault causing bodily harm instead of aggravated assault, affirming that the injuries sustained by the victim constituted "wounding" under the Criminal Code.

The court then imposed a 12-month conditional sentence followed by 24 months of probation, along with a DNA order and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The decision balanced aggravating factors, such as the unprovoked violence in a recreational setting, with significant mitigating factors, including the offender's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and strong community and family support.

General deterrence was emphasized as a paramount sentencing objective.

The young person was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged the young person engaged in non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the complainant while she was incapable of consenting due to marijuana intoxication.

The young person testified that the sexual intercourse occurred on a different day and was consensual.

Applying the W(D) principles, the court found significant inconsistencies in the evidence of the Crown witnesses regarding the events and the effects of the marijuana.

The court concluded the evidence left a reasonable doubt and acquitted the young person.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving after a police officer followed his ATV from a public road onto a private driveway to conduct a random sobriety check under the Highway Traffic Act.

The officer had no prior suspicion of impairment.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice held that police lack statutory or common law authority to conduct random sobriety stops on private property without articulable cause.

The court found the stop violated the appellant's right against arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Charter, excluded the evidence under section 24(2), and entered an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with driving without wearing a seat belt contrary to section 106(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant produced a medical note from a doctor stating he was unable to wear a seat belt because of his size.

The note did not stipulate an expiry date.

The prosecution argued the exemption under section 106(6)(b)(ii) only applies where the certificate stipulates a time period.

The court found that while certificates under section 106(6)(b)(i) for medical reasons must include a time period, certificates under section 106(6)(b)(ii) for physical characteristics need not include an expiry date.

The defendant was acquitted.