M. Del Gobbo

The defendant, a long-haul truck driver with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to four counts of smuggling and possession of unstamped tobacco under the Customs Act and Excise Act.

Over approximately 16 months, the defendant participated in a smuggling scheme importing unstamped tobacco from the United States into Canada, with three shipments intercepted totaling approximately 45,000 kilograms and evading approximately $17.5 million in duties and taxes.

The defendant was recruited by individuals known as "Rav" and "Harb" and earned approximately $2,500 per load, with evidence suggesting approximately 12 loads successfully crossed the border undetected.

The defendant's twin brother was also involved in the scheme.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with stringent conditions including home confinement with electronic monitoring, limited exceptions for employment and necessities, 200 hours of community service, and restrictions on cross-border movement and contact with his brother, followed by one year of probation with an additional 100 hours of community service.

The defendant was charged with three counts of sexual assault and three counts of sexual interference arising from alleged misconduct with three separate young female employees at a fast food restaurant.

The defendant brought a Charter application to stay the charges due to excessive delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the delay application, finding it fundamentally without merit.

On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty of all charges, determining that while the complainant E presented compelling evidence, the defence evidence created a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt that could not be safely displaced.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in sexual assault cases, despite public concern about such offences.

Four young men were charged with sexual assault and group sexual assault following an incident in which a highly intoxicated eighteen-year-old woman was driven in a car and engaged in sexual contact with three of the four defendants.

The Crown alleged the complainant was incapable of consenting due to extreme intoxication.

The defendants argued the sexual contact was consensual.

The court acquitted all defendants, finding that while the Crown's evidence was more compelling than the defence evidence, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant lacked capacity to consent, that she did not subjectively consent, or that the defendants did not honestly believe in consent.

The judgment emphasizes the high burden of proof in criminal trials and the particular challenges in sexual assault cases involving intoxicated parties.