Perry Schott

A youth was charged with two counts of assault arising from an incident where burning flammable liquid came into contact with another youth's face and torso.

The Crown alleged the defendant deliberately threw the burning liquid at the complainant.

The defence argued it was an accidental splash caused by the defendant slipping and falling after being struck with water.

The court found the defendant's evidence credible and consistent, and that both versions of events provided reasonable explanations for how the injury occurred.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on both counts.

The accused was charged with eight firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at his mother's home and found loaded firearms, ammunition, and an overcapacity magazine hidden in a suitcase and gym bag alongside documents bearing the accused's name.

The accused did not reside at the home and was not present during the search.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of or control over the contraband, as the evidence was purely circumstantial and other reasonable inferences could be drawn.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused, charged with firearms offences, brought a Charter s. 8 application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed at a residence where loaded firearms and ammunition were seized.

The court found the search warrant invalid due to insufficient corroboration of the confidential informant's information regarding the presence of the firearms at the time of the search, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court admitted the evidence, finding the police acted in good faith and the serious nature of the offences favoured adjudication on the merits.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a house party.

The complainant consumed a significant amount of alcohol and marijuana, becoming highly intoxicated, and fell asleep in the master bedroom.

The accused allegedly had non-consensual intercourse with her while she was asleep or unconscious.

The accused claimed the intercourse was consensual and occurred later in his van.

The court found the complainant was incapable of consenting due to severe intoxication and that the accused sexually assaulted her in the bedroom.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a party.

The Crown alleged the accused engaged in non-consensual intercourse with the complainant while she was highly intoxicated and incapable of consenting.

The defence argued the sexual activity was consensual and occurred later in the accused's van.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and supported by toxicology and forensic evidence, while rejecting the accused's version of events due to significant inconsistencies.

The court concluded the complainant was incapable of consent due to intoxication and found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The accused, a school bus driver, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a nine-year-old complainant.

The Crown's case rested solely on the testimony of the child, who alleged that the accused repeatedly touched his genitals over his clothing while driving the bus and referred to him as his girlfriend.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming the references to "mice" were to discourage children from eating on the bus and that any contact was innocuous.

A witness called by the defence, a fellow student who the complainant claimed witnessed the assaults, testified she saw no such contact.

Despite finding the complainant credible and rejecting the accused's denials as lacking credibility, the court found reasonable doubt existed based on the oddness of the allegations, the accused's presumption of innocence, and the conflicting witness evidence, resulting in an acquittal.

The young person appealed the adult sentence imposed by the trial judge.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to a suspended sentence followed by six months of probation, taking into account 149 days of pre-sentence custody.