Raphaël Feldstein

L'appel porte sur une ordonnance rendue en vertu de l'article 117.05 du Code criminel interdisant à Liberty Valance de posséder des armes à feu et ordonnant la confiscation de ses armes.

L'appelant, auto-représenté, conteste la décision de la juge de paix, notamment le fait que l'audience ait eu lieu en son absence.

La Cour supérieure de justice de l'Ontario conclut que la juge de paix a exercé correctement son pouvoir discrétionnaire en refusant l'ajournement et en procédant ex parte, et rejette l'appel.

The defendant, Alain Godard, was charged with assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement.

The trial focused on the complainant's testimony, which the court found to have significant reliability and credibility issues due to memory gaps, demonstrably inaccurate recollections, and admitted lies under oath in prior proceedings.

The court also ruled on the Crown's application to lift a publication ban, granting it at the complainant's request.

The defendant was found not guilty on all three charges due to reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's evidence.

The accused, V.J.L., was charged with two counts of sexual assault involving two complainants, A.G. and J.P. The Crown sought to introduce similar fact evidence, but the court found J.P.'s testimony unreliable due to intellectual challenges and inconsistencies, precluding the admission of similar fact evidence.

Applying the principles from R. v. WD, the court assessed the credibility of both complainants and the accused.

A.G. was found to be a credible and reliable witness, and the accused's denial regarding her assault was deemed improbable.

Consequently, V.J.L. was found guilty of sexually assaulting A.G. However, due to the unreliability and inconsistencies in J.P.'s evidence, the court found it unsafe to convict on the second count, leading to an acquittal for the alleged assault on J.P.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and failing or refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop on Highway 10 in Orangeville in the early morning hours of January 12, 2012.

The Crown alleged the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol and that he refused to comply with a valid breath demand.

The defendant denied impairment and claimed he sought only to delay the breath test until he could speak with his chosen counsel.

The court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court rejected the defendant's Charter arguments regarding denial of counsel, arbitrary detention, and lost video evidence.