Meghan Cunningham

The court determined whether a Sexual Assault Evidence Kit (SAEK) constitutes a "record" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, which would require a special application for its admissibility in sexual assault trials.

The Crown argued it was a record, while the defence contended it was not.

The court found that the SAEK, prepared by a specially trained nurse, falls under the exception for "records made by persons responsible for the investigation or prosecution of the offence." This is because the kit's purpose is to investigate the sexual assault allegation, making the nurse responsible for that part of the investigation.

Consequently, the SAEK is not a "record" under s. 278.1, and no application under s. 278.93 is required for its admission into evidence.

The accused was sentenced for her considerable role in atrocious sexual and physical crimes committed with her husband against their two daughters over many years.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual touching of a minor with an object, direct sexual touching of a minor, and assault with a weapon.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment, with 4 years and 3 months remaining to serve after crediting pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing decision emphasizes the gravity of the offences, the breach of parental trust, the severe and lasting harm to the victims, and the limited mitigating effect of the accused's own history of abuse and her secondary role in most offences.

The Crown sought an order for a dangerous offender/long-term offender assessment under section 752.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused consented to the assessment but objected to the Crown's proposed expert, requesting instead that the court appoint a different expert.

The Crown argued it had the exclusive right to nominate the assessor.

The court rejected this position, holding that section 752.1 requires the court to designate the expert, not the Crown.

The court found that court appointment of the expert enhances the appearance of justice and diminishes the affront to the accused's right to silence.

The matter was adjourned to allow the parties to attempt to agree on an assessor or nominate additional candidates.

The accused was convicted of sexual offences against two young victims under the age of four.

The offences included sexual interference and invitation to touch contrary to sections 151 and 152 of the Criminal Code.

The accused operated a daycare centre and abused his position of trust.

A forensic assessment concluded the accused posed a low risk of sexual or violent re-offence and found insufficient evidence of pedophilic disorder.

The court imposed a sentence of 60 months in jail with ancillary orders including DNA banking, communication prohibitions, sex offender registration, and restrictions on contact with minors and employment involving positions of trust.

The court issued a decision on the admissibility of electronic documents during a criminal trial.

The Crown sought to admit three distinct packages of electronic documents: Google Hangout conversations, Gmail exchanges, and additional Google Hangout chats.

The defence did not pursue arguments against admissibility.

The court admitted all three packages of documents as exhibits after conducting a blended admissibility voir dire.

The decision addresses the requirements for authenticating electronic documents under the Canada Evidence Act and establishes the evidentiary standards for proving authenticity and compliance with the best evidence rule for electronic documents.

A costs decision arising from a motion to change a child support order.

The respondent father sought to reduce his monthly child support obligation based on a decrease in income.

The parties settled the motion on March 31, 2015, with the father agreeing to maintain the original support amount until the child completed secondary school, while the mother abandoned her claim for past special expenses.

The court determined that the mother achieved greater success and awarded her partial costs of $3,000, finding divided success but favoring the applicant's position.

The accused was charged with eight sexual offences involving two young complainants, aged three and five years old, who were in his care at his home-based daycare.

The Crown sought to admit the out-of-court statements of both complainants to their parents and police through a Kahn application, arguing necessity and threshold reliability.

The trial judge found that both complainants would be unable to provide coherent testimony and that testifying would cause them undue trauma.

The court admitted the hearsay statements and found them reliable based on the circumstances of disclosure, the complainants' lack of knowledge of sexual conduct, and corroborating details.

The accused's defence was a simple denial.

The trial judge found the complainants' evidence accurate and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts.

A Section 21 Mental Health Act assessment including a Sexual Behaviours Assessment was ordered prior to sentencing.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired, driving with a blood alcohol concentration over .80, failing to stop for police, and resisting arrest.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings based on allegations of excessive force used by police during arrest, claiming violations of sections 7, 8, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's section 7 rights were breached through the unnecessary and unreasonable use of force in extracting him from his vehicle, resulting in significant physical and psychological injuries.

The court excluded all breath test evidence as a remedy to disassociate the justice system from the unlawful conduct.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving and sentenced to a conditional discharge with conditions including completion of a driver rehabilitation program and a prohibition on driving with any alcohol in his system.

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code after providing breath samples at a police station that exceeded the legal limit.

The Crown could not rely on the statutory presumptions of accuracy and identity because the first breath sample was taken beyond the two-hour limit.

The accused sought to raise a reasonable doubt by presenting evidence of his alcohol consumption pattern, arguing that based on his drinking, his blood alcohol level would have been below the legal limit at the time of driving.

The court found the Crown's expert toxicology evidence credible and reliable, and rejected the accused's testimony as inconsistent with the breath readings and unconfirmed by other evidence.

The accused was convicted.