Ralph Brian Steinberg

During a sentencing hearing for sexual assault, the defence objected to the admissibility of a Victim Impact Statement because it was not in the prescribed statutory form (Form 34.2) and argued that its first four paragraphs were irrelevant.

The court noted that s. 722(4) of the Criminal Code requires the statutory form, but admitted the statement on consent after the Crown offered to resubmit it properly.

The court also ruled that the first four paragraphs were admissible to provide context to the victim's circumstances, noting it would disregard any irrelevant portions pursuant to s. 722(8).

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting his estranged wife while intoxicated.

The assault occurred over a 60-90 minute period while the victim was in bed with their child.

The Crown sought a 12-month jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and breach of trust, alongside mitigating factors including the accused's lack of a criminal record, compliance with release conditions, and the victim's request that he not be jailed.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

The accused, I.F.L., was charged with sexual assault on his wife.

The complainant testified that the accused, while intoxicated, sexually assaulted her in their guest room, an incident corroborated by her mother.

The defence argued fabrication due to ongoing family law disputes and highlighted inconsistencies and a 13-month delay in reporting.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. framework for credibility, finding the accused's testimony not credible or truthful, and accepting the complainant's and her mother's evidence as credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies and the delayed report.

The court found the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a finding of guilt.

The defence objected to a Crown question during cross-examination concerning text messages between the complainant and the accused, arguing non-disclosure, prior Crown indication not to adduce the texts, and case splitting.

The Crown contended the texts were known to the defence and became relevant to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication after the accused's testimony.

The court ruled that the Crown had not split its case, as the evidence was not admissible in chief but became relevant to address the specific nature of the defence, which was an outright denial.

The defence's objection was dismissed, allowing the Crown to question the accused about the text messages.

The applicant, Dirk Plate, sought an order to be tried separately from his co-accused, Paul Caron, on charges of fraud and theft arising from an alleged $20 million kickback scheme.

The Crown alleged a common criminal enterprise, invoking the Carter rule for the admissibility of evidence.

The court balanced the factors under the interests of justice test, including the truth-seeking function, judicial economy, and potential prejudice.

The court found that a joint trial was the best way to assess witness credibility and avoid inconsistent findings, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate a real likelihood of injustice if tried jointly.

The application for severance was dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defence sought to cross-examine the complainant, a young witness, on her videotaped statement regarding allegations of sexual assault by her foster father.

The court considered whether to permit cross-examination under section 540(9) of the Criminal Code.

The judge granted the application in part, permitting cross-examination on specific areas including the contents of the statement, physical possibility of the alleged acts, genesis and motive for the complaint, delayed disclosure, a prior false complaint, a diversion contract, and limited questioning regarding mental health issues.

The judge declined to permit cross-examination regarding school misbehaviour, finding it too remotely relevant.

The decision balanced the complainant's vulnerability as a young witness against the accused's right to make full answer and defence.