N. Xynnis

The two offenders were convicted of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old unconscious victim.

The assault involved digital penetration by one offender while the other encouraged and facilitated the act.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of penile penetration lessened the gravity of the offence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced both first-time offenders to 16 months in custody followed by two years of probation, along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a weapons prohibition.

The two accused were jointly charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, who had consumed an unknown substance and alcohol, lost consciousness but later experienced a flashback of being sexually assaulted by one accused while the other accused watched and provided encouragement.

The court found the complainant's flashback memory to be reliable, as it was consistent and corroborated by physical bruising.

The court held that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity.

Both accused were found guilty, with the observing accused convicted as a party to the offence for aiding and abetting by facilitating the assault and encouraging the principal offender.

The applicants, jointly charged with historical sexual offences, brought applications for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was approximately 35 months.

The court deducted periods of defence-caused delay, reasonable judicial reserve time, and exceptional circumstances arising from one applicant's Legal Aid application process.

After deductions, the net delay for both applicants fell well below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

As the applicants failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, the applications were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued the trial judge erred by not staying proceedings due to the police's failure to video record his arrest and transport, and by failing to adequately consider a defence witness's testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the police had no duty to create video evidence and that the trial judge provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the defence witness's testimony.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to provide a breath sample.

At trial, the adult witnesses, including the police officer and the appellant, were asked to promise to tell the truth rather than being sworn or affirmed.

The summary conviction appeal court held that this was not a minor procedural irregularity curable under s. 686(1)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Code.

The failure to have adult witnesses testify under oath or solemn affirmation meant there was no properly sworn evidence before the trial court.

The conviction was quashed.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving, driving over 80, and driving while prohibited.

The convictions were based on circumstantial evidence that the appellant drove his vehicle to a fast food restaurant and retained care and control of it while inside.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding care and control was the only reasonable inference.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were fully supportable and there was no other reasonable inference available on the evidence.

Two accused were jointly tried for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession, with one accused also charged with possession of proceeds of crime.

Crack cocaine was discovered during an inventory search of a vehicle following a traffic stop and planned tow for lack of insurance.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including proximity to the drugs, possession of cash and cell phones, and suspicious movements in the vehicle.

The court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either accused had knowledge of the drugs in the vehicle.

Given the limited visibility of the bag, lack of direct evidence, and several reasonable alternative inferences, the circumstantial evidence did not establish knowing possession.