N. Calvinho

During a criminal trial, the Crown brought a motion to reconsider a previous Corbett ruling that had excised four of the accused's prior convictions for sexual assault.

The accused had testified extensively that he always pleaded guilty when he had done something wrong, creating a misleading picture for the jury, as he had pleaded not guilty and been convicted after trial for three of the excised sexual assault charges.

The court agreed with the Crown, reversing the Corbett ruling to allow the three convictions to be presented to the jury to correct the distorted view of the accused's credibility, with a clear instruction against propensity reasoning.

The accused, charged with aggravated assault and robbery, brought a pretrial motion to exclude statements he made to police during two interviews.

He argued the first statement was involuntary due to police trickery—specifically, the failure to disclose fingerprint evidence—and that he was psychologically detained, resulting in Charter breaches.

The court applied the Oickle and Grant frameworks, finding the first statement was voluntary and the accused was not detained, as he attended the station willingly and was free to leave.

Consequently, the second statement was not tainted, and all statements were ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a military marksmanship competition.

The complainant, who had consumed a significant amount of alcohol, awoke with physical signs of sexual intercourse and missing underwear, but no memory of the event.

The accused later bragged to others about having sex with her and displayed her underwear.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that the complainant initiated contact while mistaking him for someone else.

The court found the complainant was so intoxicated as to be incapacitated and incapable of consenting, and that the accused was either aware of this or wilfully blind.

The accused was found guilty.