Morgan Gries

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, robbery, possession of stolen property, and breach of probation against the accused, Charles Waddling-Leeson.

The complainant, Ms. A.A., testified to a non-consensual sexual assault in a university washroom, including choking, threats of a knife, and bodily harm, followed by the theft of her iPhone.

The accused claimed the sexual encounter was consensual and pre-arranged via Tinder.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility of both the complainant and the accused, considering DNA evidence, video surveillance, and legal principles regarding memory frailties in trauma victims and the caution against stereotypical reasoning in sexual assault cases.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable on the core issues of consent, despite minor inconsistencies, and rejected the accused's version of events due to significant contradictions with the evidence.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant, charged with domestic assault and having breached a prior non-contact bail order, applied to vary his current bail conditions to permit contact with his wife and child and to reside with them.

The court dismissed the application, finding no material change in circumstances that would warrant a variation.

Despite the complainant's recantation of her initial allegations, the court found her current testimony unreliable due to a clear power imbalance, potential coercion by the accused, and inconsistencies with her initial statements and corroborating evidence.

The court emphasized the public interest in protecting vulnerable individuals from domestic violence and the substantial risk of the accused reoffending given his history of violence across multiple domestic relationships and his disregard for court orders.

In a criminal trial, the defendant, Muhammad Hassan, challenged the admissibility of evidence (firearms, magazines, and cocaine) obtained by police, alleging multiple Charter violations.

The court found that the police engaged in serious misconduct, including fabricating evidence to justify an arbitrary arrest (s. 9), conducting unlawful searches (s. 8), and systemically failing to provide privacy for legal consultations (s. 10(b)).

Despite the serious nature of the charges, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the egregious nature of the police conduct and its impact on the accused's rights.

As a result, the Crown was unable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the defendant's acquittal on all counts.

The applicants, charged with firearms and drug offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The trial was scheduled to conclude 41 months after charges were laid.

The court deducted 280 days as an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and 470 days as defence delay due to counsel unavailability when the Crown and court were ready.

The net delay was calculated at 17 months, well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court found the delay was not markedly longer than it reasonably should have been and dismissed the application.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, pointing a firearm, and multiple firearms possession offences after assaulting a bystander and brandishing a handgun outside a hotel.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 years, while the defence sought 5 to 5.5 years and argued for a time-served sentence based on enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found a global sentence of 6 years was appropriate given the gravity of the offences, but reduced the sentence to time served (equivalent to 5 years and 1 month) after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, followed by probation.

Two defendants were sentenced for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following their arrest during a traffic stop in which 31 grams of cocaine and a digital scale were found in their vehicle.

The Crown sought six months incarceration for each defendant.

The defendants argued exceptional circumstances warranted departure from the standard sentencing range.

The court imposed six months incarceration on the first defendant, finding insufficient exceptional circumstances, but imposed 90 days intermittent incarceration on the second defendant, finding his intellectual disability and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a below-range sentence.

The defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle arising from an incident on January 12, 2016, and possession of cannabis.

The Crown called evidence from two police officers who observed the defendant's driving.

The defendant testified in his own defence.

The Crown conceded lack of continuity regarding the cannabis evidence and invited acquittal on that count.

The central issue was whether the defendant operated his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public.

The court found the police officers' evidence credible and rejected the defendant's testimony, finding the defendant guilty of dangerous driving and not guilty of possession of cannabis.