3 total
Tax Accused acquitted
The accused was charged with possession of child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.
The Crown alleged that printed materials containing child pornography, found in a drawer in the defendant's home, were in the defendant's possession.
The defendant denied knowledge of or possession of the materials and suggested that a family member, specifically his grandson Matthew Butwick, had printed and planted the materials to implicate him.
The trial judge found the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the child pornography and had printed the materials himself, rejecting the defendant's implausible alternative explanation.
Acquittal for criminal harassment set aside due to evidentiary error and unreasonable verdict.
The Crown appealed an acquittal for criminal harassment under s. 264 of the Criminal Code.
The trial judge had excluded evidence regarding the content of prior communications between the accused and the complainant and then concluded that the complainant’s fear was not reasonable.
The Superior Court held that prior conduct evidence is presumptively admissible in criminal harassment cases because it provides the context necessary to assess reasonable fear and the accused’s intent or recklessness.
The court further held that the trial judge erred by excluding the evidence without considering less drastic remedies and that the resulting acquittal was unreasonable given the findings of repeated unwanted contact and continued behaviour after police warnings.
The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.
The accused was acquitted of impaired driving due to insufficient evidence but convicted of driving over 80 after breath samples were deemed taken as soon as practicable.
The accused was charged with impaired care or control and care or control with excess blood alcohol following a minor motor vehicle accident on March 23, 2012.
The Crown relied on expert toxicological evidence regarding blood alcohol concentrations and observations of impairment indicators by police officers.
The court found the expert opinion regarding impairment in the general population did not necessarily apply to the individual accused and that the Crown's evidence of impairment was insufficient.
The impaired charge was dismissed.
However, the court found the breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" within the meaning of the Criminal Code, allowing reliance on the presumption of identity.
The accused was found guilty of the over 80 mg charge based on the lower breath sample reading of 103 mg.
