Maurizio Stellato

The accused, Yorcaef Jesus Rodriguez-Martinez, was charged with multiple offences including sexual assault causing bodily harm, choking with intent to enable or assist sexual assault, unlawfully entering a dwelling, and two counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

The complainant, BH, was unable to testify due to terminal illness, so her police statement and 911 call were admitted by consent.

The defence conceded the Crown had met its burden on all charges.

The court found the identification evidence, including eyewitness accounts, video surveillance, and DNA evidence, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The court entered convictions on all counts.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a prohibited weapon, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The trial proceeded by judge alone.

A Charter motion challenging the search incident to arrest was abandoned.

The court found the accused not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime due to reasonable doubt, but guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of heroin.

The accused was also found guilty of possession of a prohibited weapon.

The court considered circumstantial evidence and the accused's testimony as a functioning addict.

The applicants, two hospital security guards, sought certiorari to quash their committal for trial on charges of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death.

The charges arose from an incident where a patient died following a physical altercation and restraint by the guards.

The reviewing judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence for the essential elements of the offences.

Upon review, the court concluded there was no evidence establishing the objective foreseeability of non-trivial bodily harm for manslaughter, nor any evidence of wanton or reckless disregard for life for criminal negligence.

The application was granted and the committal orders were quashed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraud over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime exceeding $5,000.

The trial judge found that the appellant became wilfully blind to the fraudulent nature of funds deposited into his business account.

The appellant claimed he was unaware of the fraud and that the funds originated from identity theft of a third party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that the trial judge properly applied the doctrine of wilful blindness based on inherently suspicious circumstances and cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the pattern of deposits, frequent cash withdrawals, and purchases unrelated to any legitimate business purpose.