Saara Wilson

The accused was convicted of Sexual Assault, Forcible Confinement, Assault, and Assault Resisting Arrest.

The offences involved forced anal intercourse with the accused's former girlfriend while she was bound and confined, followed by choking and violent resistance to police arrest.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less one day with three years' probation to follow, along with mandatory ancillary orders including firearms prohibition, DNA orders, and SOIRA registration.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, assault, and assaulting a peace officer arising from incidents involving his former partner.

The court rejected the accused’s testimony as inconsistent, illogical, and contradicted by prior statements and other evidence.

The complainant’s account that the accused tied her while asleep and engaged in non‑consensual anal intercourse was found credible and supported by surrounding circumstances.

The court also accepted evidence that the accused choked the complainant during a later domestic dispute and actively assaulted an officer while resisting arrest.

The Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and convictions were entered on four counts, with one count dismissed at the Crown’s request.

The Crown appealed an 18-month sentence imposed on the respondent for sexually assaulting his wife and assaulting his wife and children over a period of years.

The sentencing judge had considered the cultural impact of the family's move from Iran to Canada as a factor in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that cultural practices that are criminal in Canada do not mitigate criminal conduct, particularly in domestic violence cases.

Finding the original sentence demonstrably unfit and noting the respondent's lack of remorse, the Court increased the global sentence to four years and ordered the respondent's reincarceration.

The applicant accused brought an application for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, challenging his detention under s. 524(8).

The accused argued that the justice of the peace erred in law by ordering his detention without confirming whether the new hybrid offences he allegedly committed while on release were proceeding by indictment.

The court held that a Crown election to proceed summarily on a hybrid offence alters its nature such that it is no longer deemed indictable for the purposes of a s. 524 hearing, and this determination must be made at the time of the hearing, not at the time of arrest.

Because the justice of the peace failed to ascertain jurisdiction, the detention order was vacated, restoring the accused's eligibility for enhanced pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed following a jury trial, specifically challenging the probation order.

The Court of Appeal found that the probation was properly imposed for the purposes of rehabilitation and protection of the public, noting a lack of evidence that the appellant had taken steps towards rehabilitation to prevent reoffending.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation, arguing there was insufficient evidence of a pattern of violence and that the predicate offence was intended as a property offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded there was a pattern of violence against women in their homes.

The Court also agreed that a long-term offender designation was unrealistic given the appellant's history of failing to follow through with therapy and the level of supervision required.