M. Galluzzo

Milan Mitrovic was convicted of sexual assault.

The court delivered reasons for sentence, imposing a 4-year penitentiary term.

The complainant was unconscious due to self-administered substances, and Mitrovic, a platonic friend, took advantage of her vulnerable state.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including Mitrovic's extensive criminal record with a history of violence against women, lack of remorse, and callous attitude.

Mitigating factors were minimal.

The court emphasized denunciation and specific and general deterrence, finding the Crown's requested sentence of 4 years appropriate and within the established range for similar serious sexual assaults.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a 10-year prohibition, communication ban, and 20-year SOIRA registration were also issued.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from an incident in his apartment: uttering death threats, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, robbery, and administering an overpowering drug.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies regarding timelines, her failure to leave despite multiple opportunities, and her motive to fabricate (to explain her late arrival home to an angry boyfriend).

Although the judge found the complainant was likely truthful about the overall events, a reasonable doubt arose from the accumulated inconsistencies.

The accused was acquitted on all five counts but convicted of the included offence of Theft Under $5000, as the evidence established he converted the complainant's property.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The accused calculated the total delay as exceeding thirteen months from arrest to trial date, arguing it exceeded the Morin guideline of eight to ten months.

The court dismissed the application, finding that pre-charge delay cannot be included in the section 11(b) analysis, that a reasonable intake period must be deducted for the extensive disclosure requests, and that the remaining institutional delay of approximately ten months fell within the guideline.

The court also found little evidence of actual prejudice and emphasized the strong societal interest in a trial on the merits for drinking and driving offences.