Rodney Sellar

The accused was tried on seven counts of assault and sexual assault alleged to have occurred against his spouse during their marriage.

The case turned primarily on the credibility of the complainant and the accused, presenting a classic 'he said/she said' scenario.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the trial judge found inconsistencies and reliability issues in the complainant's testimony, and while not fully accepting the accused's denials, was left with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his body and breaching a release condition prohibiting alcohol consumption.

The central issue was whether the accused's Charter right to counsel under section 10(b) was breached.

The officer detained the accused following a traffic stop for excessive speeding and, upon discovering the smell of alcohol on his breath, requested an Alcohol Screening Device.

The officer did not inform the accused of his right to counsel during the approximately 8-9 minute wait for the device to arrive, despite the accused having a cell phone with his lawyer's contact information.

The court found that a realistic opportunity existed for the accused to consult counsel before providing a breath sample, and that the officer failed to comply with his implementational obligation under section 10(b).

Consequently, the breath sample results were excluded as evidence obtained in violation of the Charter, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The appellant brought a summary conviction appeal from findings of guilt for sexual interference and sexual assault following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, where the sexual assault count was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to adequately assess the reliability of the complainant’s evidence and by applying an unequal level of scrutiny to the evidence of the complainant and the accused.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge was alive to the distinction between credibility and reliability and sufficiently addressed the reliability of the complainant’s evidence in the reasons.

The court also found no basis to conclude that different standards of scrutiny were applied to the respective evidence of the accused and the complainant.

The trial judge’s reasons were found to meet the functional adequacy standard required for appellate review.

The accused was stopped for erratic driving and subsequently subjected to an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand for suspected impaired driving.

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches: failure to inform the accused of the reason for detention (s. 10(a)), failure to provide the ASD demand "forthwith" (s. 254(2)(b)), resulting in failure to advise of the right to counsel without delay (s. 10(b) informational breach), unlawful detention and search (s. 8 and 9), and failure to facilitate a realistic opportunity to consult counsel before the ASD test (s. 10(b) implementational breach).

The trial judge excluded the breath sample evidence and acquitted the accused.

Two Ottawa police constables were charged with assault causing bodily harm after taking an intoxicated man to the ground during a street response.

The Crown relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from two civilian witnesses who observed the incident from across the street.

The court found the civilian witnesses' evidence to be extremely unreliable due to credibility issues, inconsistencies, memory problems, bias, and potential collusion.

The court found that the officers lawfully used force in self-defence and in the execution of their duties under the Criminal Code when they took the intoxicated man to the ground after he made aggressive arm motions toward them.

The charges were dismissed.