N. Gregson

The Applicant, F.W., facing a sexual assault charge, brought a s. 276 application to introduce "other sexual activity" (OSA) evidence of the complainant, M.M., related to DNA evidence, capacity to consent, and inconsistencies in her statement.

The court, applying the s. 276 regime, balanced the probative value against the prejudice.

The court allowed limited cross-examination of the complainant regarding sexual activity at the nightclub/vicinity on the night of the incident and permitted examination of Crown witness S.R. and the Applicant regarding their sexual activity with the complainant, finding significant probative value for the defence's issues of consent and DNA explanation, which outweighed the prejudice.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the defendant's conviction for two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, and one count of breach of recognizance.

The defendant attacked two victims with a knife in an unprovoked manner, causing serious injuries that could have been fatal.

The court found the defendant met the criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753(1)(a)(ii) based on a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to consequences.

Despite evidence that the defendant's schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance use disorder were theoretically treatable, the court concluded his violent conduct was intractable due to his consistent failure to seek and follow psychiatric treatment, lack of insight into his illness, and resistance to treatment.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence, finding that neither a determinate sentence nor a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

Tarrique Gordon was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old.

The court addressed the constitutional invalidity of mandatory minimum sentences and applied the Kienapple principle to conditionally stay the sexual assault conviction, sentencing only for sexual interference.

The sentencing decision considered aggravating factors such as vaginal penetration, significant victim impact, and the offender's disregard for pleas to stop, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's youth, first-time offender status, family support, and rehabilitative potential.

The court also gave serious consideration to the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence exceeding six months, ultimately imposing a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, along with various ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance arising from violent attacks on two neighbours on October 10, 2016.

The Crown alleged the accused stabbed one victim multiple times in the head and neck/upper chest area with a knife.

The accused claimed the injuries were accidental and that he acted in self-defence against the other victim.

The court found that while the attack was vicious, unprovoked, and premeditated, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the specific intent to kill.

The court convicted on aggravated assault, weapons dangerous charges, and breach of recognizance, but acquitted on attempted murder and breach of probation.

A mid-trial ruling on a voluntariness voir dire concerning a videotaped statement made by the accused to police.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown sought to introduce a videotaped statement made during police interrogation.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt due to oppressive circumstances, including prolonged handcuffing, deprivation of clean clothing, sleep deprivation, and the use of excessive force during evidence collection.

The court also found that the accused should have been re-cautioned prior to the interview given his state of mind and the circumstances.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The parties met in person after communicating via social media.

The accused admitted to intentional sexual touching but claimed the complainant consented.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's exculpatory evidence as implausible and inconsistent.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, concluding that she did not consent and that the accused did not have an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The Crown applied to admit the ante mortem statements of the deceased in a first-degree murder trial.

The deceased had made statements to friends and family about the breakdown of her marriage and her husband's resulting anger and behaviour.

The court held that the statements were admissible under both the traditional state of mind exception and the principled approach to hearsay, as they were relevant to animus and motive, and met the threshold for reliability.

The accused brought a motion to sever two counts on an indictment alleging aggravated assault against one infant and second-degree murder of another infant.

The Crown opposed severance and sought admission of similar fact evidence between the counts.

The court applied the governing principles on similar fact evidence, including the requirement that probative value outweigh prejudicial effect, and assessed the degree of similarity between the incidents, the evidentiary nexus, and the likelihood of coincidence.

The court concluded that the similarities between the injuries, circumstances of caregiving, and opportunity created a strong inference that the same perpetrator committed both offences.

The probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice, which could be addressed through jury instructions.