Natalie Murielle Boivin

The appellant appealed convictions for harassment in a domestic context and breach of a peace bond, following a trial where he was acquitted of uttering threats.

The appeal raised issues concerning the trial judge's interpretation of facts, witness influence, the reasonableness of the verdict, rejection of defence evidence, and incomplete disclosure.

The Superior Court, sitting as a summary conviction appeal court, dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's thorough examination of evidence, detailed reasons for credibility findings, and proper handling of the disclosure issue, which the appellant had consciously waived at trial.

The court emphasized the limited scope of appellate review for factual findings and credibility.

The accused was sentenced following a conviction after trial for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and guilty pleas to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of breaching bail recognizance.

Police executing a search warrant located a loaded handgun in a bag belonging to the accused at a residence used as a base for drug trafficking.

While on bail for the firearms charge, the accused travelled to another city and was arrested with cocaine, multiple cell phones, cash, and a digital scale, breaching several bail conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for the dangerous combination of loaded firearms and drug trafficking, while considering the offender’s youth and lack of prior criminal record.

A global sentence of four and one‑half years’ imprisonment was imposed, less credit for pre‑trial custody.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant was consensual.

The complainant testified that she repeatedly told the accused she did not want to have sex, but he used force and violence to overcome her resistance, causing multiple injuries.

The accused claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual and that the complainant initiated sexual interest.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence.

The court found that the accused knew exactly what he was doing and used force and violence when the complainant would not comply.

The court rejected the accused's defences based on lack of sexual experience and cultural differences.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown brought pre‑trial applications seeking rulings on the admissibility of a transcript from prior family law proceedings between the accused and the complainant, and a 911 recording made immediately after the alleged stabbing.

The court held that the family court transcript was admissible to prove what was said at the hearing and to support a potential motive, though not for the truth of its contents, and that certain portions should be redacted.

The court also admitted the 911 recording under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule, finding it was a spontaneous statement made contemporaneously with the alleged offence and highly probative of the circumstances of the attack.

The court concluded that the probative value of the recording outweighed any prejudicial effect and that the audio recording, rather than the transcript containing descriptive annotations, should be presented to the jury.