N.A. Xynnis

The Crown applied to admit similar act evidence from a prior conviction against the accused, W.L., in his current trial for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a nine-year-old complainant.

The court analyzed the proximity in time, detailed similarities (age of complainants, nature of sexual acts, circumstances, position of trust), dissimilarities, and the absence of collusion.

Finding the evidence highly probative and its probative value outweighing its prejudicial effect, the court granted the Crown's application, deeming the similar act evidence admissible.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, arguing that the trial judge unreasonably concluded he was in care or control of the vehicle.

The appellant had been seated in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle with the headlights and heater on while intoxicated, claiming he intended to walk to a friend’s house rather than drive.

Applying the principles from R. v. Boudreault, the court held that the trial judge reasonably found a realistic risk of danger because the appellant’s alleged alternate plan was vague and had been undermined by subsequent events.

The trial judge was entitled to conclude the appellant exercised care or control by unlocking, starting, and occupying the vehicle without a concrete plan.

The verdict was supported by the evidence and not unreasonable.