M. Iny

The defendant, Jordan Maxwell, was charged with sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant alleged that Maxwell sexually assaulted her and threatened her life while she was babysitting his children.

Maxwell denied the allegations.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.

While finding the complainant more credible and believable than the defendant, the court noted inconsistencies and uncertainties in the complainant's evidence regarding timing and details, which prevented the Crown from proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple historical sexual offences against his young son, including sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault arising from prolonged and escalating abuse within the home.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the paramount sentencing objectives in child sexual abuse cases, while still giving weight to rehabilitation, restraint, the offender's traumatic childhood, health issues, hearing impairment, remorse, and the custodial risks associated with the pandemic.

A global sentence of 42 months' imprisonment was imposed, with concurrent sentences on all counts and enhanced credit for presentence custody.

On ancillary relief, the court granted a lifetime s. 161(1)(b) prohibition, a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a lifetime SOIRA order, but declined broader s. 161 prohibitions for lack of evidentiary foundation.

The accused, a former elementary school teacher and scoutmaster, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of indecent assault against seven young male scouts committed between 1966 and 1979.

The offences involved sexual touching, masturbation, and in one case oral sex, perpetrated during cottage trips and scout activities.

The accused had previously been convicted of similar offences in 1980 and sentenced to three months concurrent custody.

The sentencing hearing addressed systemic delays in the prosecution, the profound and lasting impacts on the victims, the offender's rehabilitation over 35 years without reoffending, and the appropriate balance between denunciation and restraint in sentencing.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for trial on charges including kidnapping and multiple firearm offences.

The case was entirely circumstantial and relied on cell phone tower evidence, a firearm magazine found at the scene, and the ownership of a vehicle linked to the incident.

The court held there was sufficient evidence capable of supporting a reasonable inference of the applicant’s involvement in the kidnapping for the purpose of committal.

However, the preliminary inquiry judge erred in concluding that the presence of a firearm magazine supported an inference that a firearm was used during the offence.

As there was no evidentiary foundation capable of satisfying a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a firearm was used, the firearm-related committals were quashed while the kidnapping and related offences remained.

The accused was charged with robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence following an attempted robbery at a restaurant.

Two men entered the restaurant, and the first assailant assaulted one of the owners while demanding money from a safe.

The victims escaped and pointed out the fleeing suspect to passing police officers, who chased and arrested the accused.

The court found the eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence reliable, convicting the accused of robbing one victim, using an imitation firearm, and wearing a mask, but acquitting him of robbing the second victim as nothing was stolen or attempted to be stolen from him.