Melanie Nancekievill

The applicant, a repeat sex offender with multiple convictions involving female children, applied to vary a s. 161 Prohibition Order to allow contact with his fiancée's 9-year-old son, or alternatively, to have his fiancée approved as a supervisor.

The court found that while there was a change in circumstances, the proposed variation was not desirable.

The court noted the applicant's history of offending against children in his trust and found the fiancée lacked insight into his behaviour, making her an unsuitable supervisor.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for a retrial on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference against his stepdaughter, alleging that he was unlawfully overhold in custody for approximately sixteen hours after the Court of Appeal issued an order for his release.

The applicant argued that multiple Charter rights were breached, including rights under sections 7, 9, 10(a), and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown opposed the stay, characterizing the overhold as an inadvertent or technical breach for which alternative remedies were available.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, finding that while the conduct was offensive and systemic problems existed in the correctional system's procedures, the circumstances did not warrant the drastic remedy of a stay of proceedings.

The defendant brought a constitutional motion seeking a declaration that the accused-records regime in ss. 278.92 to 278.94 of the Criminal Code was of no force and effect.

In a prosecution including one sexual offence count among numerous non-sexual counts, the defendant argued that requiring advance application, disclosure of detailed particulars, and complainant participation infringed the rights to full answer and defence and a fair trial, and that the scheme was overbroad when the records related only to non-sexual allegations.

The court held that the provisions did not impair effective cross-examination or trial fairness in a manner contrary to ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter, and that the scheme rationally advanced complainant privacy, dignity, and confidence in the administration of justice.

The overbreadth challenge also failed, and no s. 1 analysis was required.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

At the police station, the appellant was provided with an outdated list of lawyers and contacted a lawyer who was suspended from practice.

The trial judge found a breach of the appellant's s. 10(b) Charter rights but admitted the breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2).

On appeal, the Superior Court found the trial judge erred in characterizing the breach as minor and technical.

Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the court held the systemic failure to provide an updated list of lawyers was a serious breach that significantly impacted the appellant's rights.

The breathalyzer evidence was excluded, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

The offender, an Aboriginal man, was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, simple assault, two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and mischief.

The Crown sought a 27-month sentence, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

Applying Gladue principles and considering the offender's traumatic childhood in the foster care system, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 months incarceration, noting that a penitentiary sentence would have been warranted but for the offender's personal circumstances and Aboriginal background.

The defendant, K.D.R., was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the sexual touching was consensual and if the defendant had an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court reviewed the evidence, including conflicting testimonies from the complainant and the defendant, and social media messages.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, which cast doubt on her reliability and credibility.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.