Sarah Jean Burden

The defendant was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm arising from an alleged incident on June 12, 2016.

The complainant alleged the defendant raped her and punched her multiple times in the face, causing bruising and injuries.

The defendant claimed the sexual activity was consensual and that the complainant's injuries resulted from her falling while intoxicated.

The complainant passed away before trial, requiring the Crown to rely on hearsay statements.

The court found the defendant's testimony inconsistent, improbable, and contradicted by independent evidence.

However, due to material inconsistencies in the complainant's own statements and the absence of cross-examination to clarify them, the court found reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on both counts.

The Crown applied to introduce multiple hearsay statements made by the deceased complainant in the aftermath of alleged sexual and physical assaults.

The statements included a 911 call, statements to police officers, and a video-recorded statement made ten days after the alleged offences.

The defendant opposed admission on hearsay grounds.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, analyzing both procedural and substantive reliability under the framework established in R. v. Khelawon and clarified in R. v. Bradshaw.

The court found that corroborative evidence, including DNA analysis, physical injuries, photographs, and police observations, established substantive reliability by ruling out alternative explanations for the statements.

All statements were admitted as admissible for the truth of their contents.

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

A police officer responded to a complaint of a possible impaired driver refused service at a beer store and located the accused sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle in a parking lot.

The officer observed signs of impairment including slurred speech, glossy eyes, strong odour of alcohol, and lack of coordination.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples showing readings of 100 mg and 90 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The defence argued Charter breaches under sections 8 and 9 regarding arbitrary detention and unlawful search, and that no authority existed to stop a vehicle in a parking lot.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, no Charter breach, and convicted the accused of care and control over 80 mg, with a conditional stay on the impaired care and control charge.

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to Section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge and proceeded on the over .08 charge only.

Following a trial, the court found that the Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of driving over .08.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

Police officers observed a vehicle on Highway 105 near a R.I.D.E. checkpoint and followed it to a parking lot where they found the accused sleeping in a vehicle.

The officers detained the accused and administered an approved screening device and breathalyzer tests without proper Charter compliance.

The court found breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and excluded the evidence under section 24(2), resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his driver's licence was suspended, contrary to section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant had 21 prior convictions for the same offence and had accumulated $27,000 in unpaid fines.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission for 12 months probation with no fine or incarceration.

The court rejected the joint submission, finding it contrary to the public interest and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court imposed 60 days custody, a $2,000 fine (the statutory minimum for a subsequent offence), plus costs and surcharge, and 12 months probation with specific conditions including a prohibition on being in the driver's seat of any vehicle.