3 total
Appeal decision noted
The accused, Stephen Jones, was charged with sexual assault (s. 271 Criminal Code) and sexual touching of a young person in a position of trust (s. 153(1)(a) Criminal Code).
The complainant, A.D., aged 17, alleged non-consensual sexual contact by Mr. Jones, her 60-year-old softball coach and father figure.
The court found A.D. to be a credible and reliable witness, whose testimony was corroborated by text messages and a letter from Mr. Jones expressing regret and acknowledging a breach of trust.
The court found that Mr. Jones intentionally touched A.D. for a sexual purpose without her consent, and that a relationship of trust existed, given the age gap, his role as coach and father figure, and the control he exercised.
Mr. Jones was found guilty on both counts.
The court granted the Crown's application for the complainant to testify via closed-circuit television.
This ruling addresses an application for a complainant to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) in a criminal proceeding involving an indecent act.
The court granted the application, applying the "facilitate" test under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, considering the complainant's anxiety, the sensitive nature of the allegations, and the familial relationship with the accused.
The judge also expressed concerns about the Crown's repeated failure to address the suitability of screens as an alternative testimonial aid and persistent technical failures with CCTV equipment, which cause significant delays in the court system.
The court dismissed the accused's Charter application, finding the pre-arrest detention and search lawful.
The accused, Jeremy Menary, faced criminal charges related to the possession of a loaded handgun, cash, and various drugs found during his arrest.
He brought a Charter application to exclude all evidence under section 24(2), alleging violations of his sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights.
The defence argued that the arrest for impaired driving was a pretext to justify an unlawful search.
The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no violations.
It held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for impaired driving, which lawfully preceded the search.
The court also found that the brief pre-arrest detention was justified under section 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for investigating sobriety and vehicle authorization, thus not triggering immediate section 10 Charter rights.
