Peter N. Fraser

Tyrone Matthews was charged with unlawful confinement, dangerous operation, and failing to stop for police.

The complainant, Kylee Jordan-Kalina, recanted her initial statements implicating Matthews at trial, claiming she was the driver.

The Crown successfully admitted her out-of-court statements.

The court dismissed the unlawful confinement charge but found Matthews guilty of dangerous operation and failing to stop for police, rejecting the complainant's trial testimony as contrived and accepting her out-of-court statements and other corroborating evidence.

The Crown applied to admit three out-of-court statements made by the complainant, Kylee Jordan-Kalina, as spontaneous utterances in a criminal trial for unlawful confinement, dangerous operation, and failing to stop for police.

The complainant had recanted her initial statement at trial.

The court applied the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule, which requires the statement to be made under stress or pressure such that the possibility of concoction is safely discounted.

The court admitted one statement (a phone call recorded by an in-car camera) due to the complainant's evident distress and the ongoing stressful events.

The other two statements (one to an officer with leading questions and no recording, and another made later at the police station) were excluded for lacking spontaneity and reliability.

The accused, Mylo Barreto, was charged with assault causing bodily harm, robbery, and unlawful confinement against Allan Howe, his landlord.

The incident arose from a rent dispute and pending eviction.

Howe testified to a prolonged, violent attack by Barreto and two friends, resulting in significant injuries and theft of money.

Barreto admitted causing injuries but claimed self-defence, denying the involvement of his friends, confinement, or theft.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses and the validity of the self-defence claim.

The court found Howe's testimony compelling and corroborated by physical evidence, while Barreto's self-defence claim was inconsistent with the extensive injuries inflicted and lacked credibility.

The court rejected Barreto's evidence and found the Crown proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving following a motor vehicle collision.

The central issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The court considered various indicia of impairment, including the collision circumstances, the defendant's unsteadiness, physical observations, and an utterance about alcohol consumption.

The judge found that the evidence, even when considered cumulatively, allowed for competing reasonable explanations and did not meet the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.