Robert S. Gee

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an encounter at a buck and doe event on the Six Nations Reserve on July 29, 2012.

The complainant was heavily intoxicated and had significant memory gaps regarding the night.

The Crown advanced two theories: first, that the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication, and second, that she did not in fact consent.

The court found the complainant possessed minimal capacity to consent despite her intoxication.

However, the court found the evidence regarding actual consent was equivocal and could not be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for breaking and entering a dairy farmer's residence, committing theft, and related offences.

The defendants were charged with jointly breaking and entering and stealing property, possessing stolen property, and possessing a stolen GPS.

One defendant was additionally charged with robbery for physically assaulting the homeowner during the break-in.

The other defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon for throwing a rock at the homeowner.

The trial judge convicted both defendants on the break and enter and theft charges, and on possession of property stolen from the residence.

One defendant was convicted of robbery, the other of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

The charge regarding the stolen GPS was dismissed against both defendants due to insufficient evidence of knowledge of its stolen nature.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was found asleep in the driver's seat of his Volvo truck tractor with the engine running at his residence.

The Crown conceded that the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption of care or control.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused posed a realistic risk of danger in the particular circumstances, considering that he was already home, had been in the truck for 10-15 minutes without attempting to drive it, the truck had a sleeping compartment, and he had easier means of leaving if that were his intention.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of his former girlfriend on May 24, 2013.

The complainant alleged the encounter was non-consensual, while the accused claimed it was consensual or that he honestly believed it was.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Ewanchuk and found the complainant credible and the accused not credible.

The court determined the complainant did not consent and that the accused was aware of her lack of consent and proceeded regardless.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown sought to rely on the presumption of identity under s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The defence challenged whether the Crown had proven two prerequisites: that the samples were taken as soon as practicable, and that the first sample was taken within two hours of the offence.

The court found the samples were taken as soon as practicable but held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the first sample was taken within the two-hour requirement due to insufficient evidence regarding the consistency of timepieces used.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with four offences arising from an incident on the Six Nations Reserve: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failure to stop for police, possession of a stolen Chevrolet Trailblazer valued over $5,000, and failure to comply with a probation term.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved the accused was the driver of the stolen vehicle.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts based on eyewitness identification evidence from a police sergeant who had prior dealings with the accused, corroborated by circumstantial evidence including the accused's proximity to the abandoned vehicle, footprints consistent with the accused wearing only socks, and identification by a second officer.

The accused brought an application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The information was sworn on April 25, 2012, and the application was heard on October 7, 2013, approximately 20 months later.

The court found an unacceptable delay of approximately 19 months, with significant portions attributable to the Crown and judicial officers.

The court also found moderate actual prejudice to the accused flowing from the delay.

Balancing the competing interests and applying the framework from R. v. Morin, the court granted the application and ordered a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with assaulting his common-law spouse.

The Crown's case was straightforward: the accused punched and kicked the victim on the stairs and basement of their shared residence.

The accused admitted to the physical acts but raised a defence of non-insane automatism, claiming he was in a state of hypoglycaemic shock due to his diabetes and was therefore unaware of his actions and unable to form the requisite mens rea.

The court found that the accused had met the threshold for raising the defence and, on a balance of probabilities, had rebutted the presumption of voluntariness.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a single-vehicle collision.

The accused denied being the driver and claimed Charter violations regarding the right to counsel and unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the accused was the driver based on credible eyewitness evidence and physical evidence from the collision.

No Charter violations were found.

The court concluded the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol and her blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit at the time of the collision.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath sample analysis results and observations made by police officers, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The court found no arbitrary detention under section 9, no violation of the right to be informed of reasons for detention under section 10(a), and no unlawful search under section 8.

The court upheld the officer's reasonable and probable grounds for making the breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, including speeding, failure to pull over immediately, slurred speech, red glassy eyes, odour of alcohol, and the accused's unusual utterance.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident knowing that bodily harm had been caused.

The incident occurred when the accused operated an ATV in a public park in a dangerous manner, performing donuts and driving at high speed through a skateboard park where members of the public were present.

The accused struck a person, causing a fractured femur.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm but not guilty of the aggravated failure to stop charge, instead finding him guilty of the lesser included offence of simple failure to stop.