Sarah Maureen Donohue

The defendant brought a constitutional motion seeking a declaration that the accused-records regime in ss. 278.92 to 278.94 of the Criminal Code was of no force and effect.

In a prosecution including one sexual offence count among numerous non-sexual counts, the defendant argued that requiring advance application, disclosure of detailed particulars, and complainant participation infringed the rights to full answer and defence and a fair trial, and that the scheme was overbroad when the records related only to non-sexual allegations.

The court held that the provisions did not impair effective cross-examination or trial fairness in a manner contrary to ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter, and that the scheme rationally advanced complainant privacy, dignity, and confidence in the administration of justice.

The overbreadth challenge also failed, and no s. 1 analysis was required.

The offender, an Aboriginal man, was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, simple assault, two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and mischief.

The Crown sought a 27-month sentence, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

Applying Gladue principles and considering the offender's traumatic childhood in the foster care system, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 months incarceration, noting that a penitentiary sentence would have been warranted but for the offender's personal circumstances and Aboriginal background.

The offender pleaded guilty to pointing a firearm at his common-law spouse's face during a domestic dispute, possession of a firearm while prohibited, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of Oxycodone, and breach of probation.

The offence occurred in the presence of a two-year-old child and resulted in a four-hour police standoff.

The court imposed an exemplary sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, with a global sentence of four years (three years for pointing the firearm, one year consecutive for possession while prohibited, and two years consecutive for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm), less enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

A lifetime firearms prohibition was imposed.

The defendant, K.D.R., was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the sexual touching was consensual and if the defendant had an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court reviewed the evidence, including conflicting testimonies from the complainant and the defendant, and social media messages.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, which cast doubt on her reliability and credibility.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.