Peter Léger

The accused, L.H., was charged with repeated sexual assault of the complainant during their marriage.

The complainant described four incidents, which the accused denied.

Both parties presented evidence that was generally credible, but the court found minor concerns with the credibility and reliability of both.

Due to diametrically opposed narratives and insufficient corroborating evidence, the court was left in a state of doubt as to which version was true.

Applying the R. v. W.D. test, the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, challenged the validity of a telewarrant to search his home and the admissibility of his statement to police.

The court found the Information to Obtain contained sufficient reliable evidence for the issuing justice to grant the warrant.

The court also held that the accused's statement was voluntary, as he possessed an operating mind despite his references to demons and curses, and that his rights to silence and counsel under ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter were not breached.

Both applications to exclude evidence were dismissed.

Derek Crespy appealed his conviction for assault and the imposed sentence of 45 days imprisonment.

The appeal court reviewed the trial judge's findings of fact, credibility assessments, and sentencing decision.

The court found no error in principle regarding the conviction, the rejection of self-defence, the credibility assessment of witnesses, or the reliance on photographic evidence.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge and no error in principle in the sentencing decision, noting the aggravating factor of an unprovoked assault involving kicking to the head.

Both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence were dismissed.

The appellant, Daniel Raymond Lavigne, appealed his conviction for failing to provide a breath sample and his sentence.

The trial judge found an 8-minute delay in demanding a breath sample was justified for officer safety and investigation, satisfying the "forthwith" requirement under s. 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal court upheld the conviction, finding no reviewable error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law.

The court declined to hear the appeal from sentence, noting it was not properly advanced in the appellant's factum or oral arguments.

K.R. was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a young person, M.B. The trial focused on whether the alleged events occurred.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the child complainant, M.B., and the defence witnesses, K.R. and his wife, B.R. The judge found M.B.'s testimony to be rehearsed, inconsistent with other evidence, and illogical regarding timing and the presence of B.R. While not necessarily believing the accused's denials, the judge found B.R.'s testimony credible and compelling, particularly regarding the impossibility of the alleged incidents occurring unnoticed.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on both counts.