Rohit Chhibber

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an encounter with a 14-year-old complainant after a rideshare trip, during which alcohol was purchased, consumed, and a social interaction continued in a parking lot.

The court admitted the complainant’s prior video-recorded statements under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code but held that their weight was materially undermined by inconsistencies between the statements and the complainant’s trial evidence on the existence of sexual discussion, the touching alleged, and its timing and context.

The court further found that the complainant’s admitted intoxication and inability to place the allegation relative to objective video evidence weakened reliability on central issues.

Applying W.(D.) and considering Villaroman in relation to circumstantial inferences of sexual intent, the court concluded the accused’s evidence was believed, or at minimum raised a reasonable doubt, and that the Crown failed to prove either count beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, C.D., was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred over a 12-year period during a common law relationship.

The complainant described a pattern of emotionally manipulative and non-consensual sexual activity, but was only able to provide specific details of three incidents at trial.

The court found that, while the accused's behaviour was manipulative and at times abhorrent, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity in the three described instances, nor that the accused knew of any lack of consent.

C.D. was acquitted.

The accused, Christian Bolemwa, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg%.

During the trial, a Charter application was brought alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds to detain and arrest the accused, and that his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(a) were not violated.

Regarding section 10(b), the court determined that the accused's circumstances did not constitute "special circumstances" requiring enhanced police diligence, as he indicated understanding his rights and was provided French-speaking duty counsel.

The court found the accused guilty of both counts, concluding that his ability to operate a conveyance was impaired by alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting mental health concerns as a plausible alternative explanation for his behavior.

The defendant, Mathew Cook, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Jordan, calculating the total delay, subtracting defence delay, and accounting for exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and unforeseen need for additional trial time.

After deductions, the net delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence had not demonstrated meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed.