Natasha Calvinho

The accused, Paul Needham, was charged with one count of sexual assault on his former spouse.

The case involved diametrically opposed accounts of a sexual encounter on January 10, 2019, while the parties were co-habiting post-separation.

The Crown argued the complainant said "no" and "don't," while the accused claimed consensual oral sex initiated by the complainant.

The court assessed credibility and reliability under the W.(D.) framework, finding the accused's testimony credible and reliable.

The court concluded that the accused's actions, based on his accepted account, did not constitute sexual assault, as there was communicated consent through gestures and verbal requests, and he stopped when consent was clearly withdrawn.

The court set aside its previous decision summarily dismissing the applicant's change of venue application.

The original dismissal was based on judicial comity and an assessment of the merits, which the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Haevischer (2023 SCC 11) now prohibits at the summary dismissal stage.

The court found that the application's factual basis required a hearing to determine if the threshold for a change of venue was met, as it was not "manifestly frivolous." The applicant is permitted to bring his application afresh.

Patrick King, charged in connection with the "Freedom Convoy," applied for a change of venue from Ottawa, arguing he could not receive a fair trial due to local prejudice and extensive prejudicial media coverage.

The court dismissed the application, citing the principle of judicial comity and deferring to a prior decision in R v. Bauder, 2023 ONSC 996, which addressed similar concerns regarding pretrial publicity and local bias for "Freedom Convoy" cases.

The court affirmed that standard procedural safeguards during jury selection are sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

Jacques Trudel was found guilty of possession of over two kilograms of methamphetamine for trafficking, possession of hydromorphone, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of seven to nine years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or two to three years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity of drugs, Trudel's principal role, and his lengthy criminal record, and mitigating factors such as his age, serious health conditions (HIV, Hepatitis C), and four years under strict house arrest.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, distinguishing Trudel's case from that of a co-accused due to his leadership role and failure to seek addiction treatment.

While acknowledging the impact of age, health, and house arrest, the court found these factors did not warrant a substantial reduction from the appropriate sentencing range for drug trafficking.

Trudel was sentenced to six and a half years of incarceration for trafficking, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of breaching a probation order and criminal harassment against a family he had previously been convicted of harassing.

The Crown alleged the accused was seen near the complainants' residence and following one of the complainants in a vehicle.

The court found the eyewitness identification evidence provided by the complainants to be unreliable due to lack of familiarity, poor lighting, brief observation times, and the complainants' heightened anxiety and assumption that the perpetrator was the accused.

The Crown failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts, and a one-year peace bond was entered on consent.

The accused, a registered massage therapist, was charged with four counts of sexual assault relating to four female clients.

The complainants alleged inappropriate touching of their breasts, glutes, and inner thighs during massage treatments.

The accused denied the allegations, testifying that he always obtained prior consent for treatment and that the touching was clinically indicated.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's evidence unreliable due to his admitted lax charting and practices.

However, considering the expert evidence on clinical indications for massaging certain areas and inconsistencies in the complainants' testimonies, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the touching occurred in circumstances of a sexual nature.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of a known third-party suspect.

The Crown opposed, arguing there was no air of reality to the proposed evidence.

The court applied the sufficient connection test and found that, taking the proposed evidence at its highest, there was an air of reality linking the third party to the shooting.

The application was granted, allowing the defence to cross-examine Crown witnesses and lead evidence regarding the alternative suspect.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a statement provided by the accused, Donald Musselman, to police, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The defence challenged the statement's voluntariness and alleged breaches of Charter rights.

The court found that the interviewing officer undermined the accused's right to silence by suggesting his credibility would be diminished if he did not speak to police and later testified at trial.

Consequently, the statement was not proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and was excluded from evidence.

The accused, charged with possession of property obtained by crime and laundering proceeds of crime, brought a pre-trial application to exclude Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) documents obtained by the investigating officer.

The officer had requested the documents under s. 241(3) of the Income Tax Act, relying on previous, unrelated charges.

The court found that for an investigation into potential new charges, the officer was required to obtain a judicial order under s. 462.48(3) of the Criminal Code.

The warrantless search of the taxpayer information violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the CRA documents from evidence and excised references to them from the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

However, the court found that the edited ITOs still contained sufficient reliable evidence to support the General Production Orders, and declined to exclude the evidence obtained through those orders.

The accused, Thomas Bell and Norman Stanley Rosbottom Jr., were tried on a 22-count indictment involving charges of participating in a criminal organization, robbery, kidnapping, assault, firearms possession, and drug trafficking.

The Crown alleged that the accused led a criminal organization associated with the Outlaws Motorcycle Club and the Dead Eyes Motorcycle Club.

The court found that the group constituted a criminal organization and that the accused committed several offences, including home invasion robberies, kidnapping, and drug trafficking, for the benefit of the organization.

The court relied on the evidence of several disreputable witnesses, finding their testimony corroborated by other evidence.

However, the court acquitted the accused on charges related to the kidnapping of Cody Noonan and the firearms found at the organization's headquarters due to reasonable doubt.

The Crown sought to admit portions of Jill Gil's bail hearing testimony under the principled approach to hearsay.

Jill Gil, the grandmother of accused Marcus Gil, was unavailable to testify at trial.

The court found that while the necessity criterion for hearsay was met due to her unavailability, the threshold reliability was not established.

The court also determined that the Crown's cross-examination of Jill Gil at the bail hearing was primarily a discovery mechanism, which was improper and would render the admission of such evidence unfair to the accused.

Consequently, the court ruled against the admission of Jill Gil's bail hearing testimony.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, robbery, and break and enter.

The central issue was the identity of the accused as one of the perpetrators.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's fingerprints found on a drug jar at the scene, cell phone records, and the accused's prior lies to the police.

The defence presented an alibi and argued that the fingerprints could have been left during earlier, legitimate drug transactions with the victim.

The court found the accused and his alibi witness not credible due to inconsistencies and vagueness.

However, the court also found the victim's testimony to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding his memory, the identity of "TYBO" (a client recorded in his drug book), and the frequency of washing his drug jars.

Given the conflicting evidence and the victim's lack of credibility on key points, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused, Marcus Gil, age 19, was arrested in January 2017 on serious charges including kidnapping, forcible confinement, robbery, break and enter, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm arising from a violent home invasion.

He was released on bail in April 2017 on strict conditions including house arrest, two sureties (his grandparents), and GPS monitoring.

While on release, he allegedly breached his conditions by meeting with a witness, dealing crack cocaine, and attempting to obstruct justice by trying to convince the witness to leave the city.

The Crown brought a s. 524(8) application to cancel his previous release, and the accused brought a bail application on the new charges.

The court found the accused had not met his onus to show cause for release and ordered him detained on both tertiary and secondary grounds.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault on March 8, 2014.

The complainant testified that the defendant sexually assaulted her in four separate locations: in an elevator, on a bus, on stairs, and in a parking lot.

The defendant testified that he was extremely intoxicated and had no memory of the events after 3:00 a.m.

The court found that while the complainant presented as credible, there were significant inconsistencies between her evidence and that of other witnesses, as well as inconsistencies between her trial testimony and her prior statements to police.

The court concluded that these inconsistencies left a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt and acquitted him.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a 13-year-old complainant whom he met in downtown Ottawa.

The accused argued that the complainant fabricated the events to avoid punishment for skipping school and shoplifting, and alternatively raised the defence of mistaken belief of age.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding inconsistencies and motive to fabricate.

The court also found the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age.

The accused was found guilty of both charges, with a stay to be entered on one conviction.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the defendant, A.A.G., who was convicted of multiple sexual assaults and other violent offences against his stepchildren and their mother.

The defence argued for a long-term supervision order.

The court, after considering expert psychiatric opinions and the defendant's extensive criminal history, found that the defendant met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to a pattern of repetitive violent and sexual behaviour, high risk of recidivism, and lack of genuine willingness for treatment.

The court declined to impose a long-term offender designation, concluding that there was no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

The defendant was convicted of trafficking in crack cocaine and related offences following an undercover police operation in Ottawa's market area.

The defendant subsequently brought an application to stay the proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

The court found that while the police did not have a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking at the initial contact, by the time the officer provided an opportunity to commit the offence, reasonable suspicion had been established through the defendant's conduct and statements.

The court also found that the police were engaged in a bona fide inquiry into drug trafficking in a precisely defined geographic area where criminal activity was concentrated.

The application to stay proceedings was dismissed.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for a change of venue under s. 599 of the Criminal Code.

They argued that a fair trial in Sarnia was impossible due to the small community size, extensive pre-trial publicity regarding their alleged sexual practices, the overwhelming community response to the victim's death, the victim's father's employment at the local courthouse, and inadequate courthouse facilities.

The court granted the application, finding that the cumulative effect of these factors created a reasonable probability of prejudice and impacted the applicants' fair trial rights.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at their residence, alleging the warrant was invalid and the search violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They argued the information to obtain relied excessively on confidential informants whose reliability and motivations were insufficiently disclosed, and that the information failed to establish reasonable grounds linking the residence to drug trafficking.

The court reviewed the information to obtain under the Garofoli standard and held that the issuing justice had a sufficient evidentiary basis to authorize the warrant.

Surveillance evidence, corroborated informant information, and covert entries into a related suspect’s residence collectively established reasonable and probable grounds.

The applications to exclude the seized evidence were therefore dismissed.