Sarah White

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against the accused, T.B., involving his niece, D.B., when she was five or six years old.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, supported by her mother's evidence regarding opportunity.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to the significant passage of time, her young age at the time of the alleged events, and inconsistencies in her and her mother's recollections.

The defence also highlighted the accused's identical twin brother as a potential source of confusion.

The court, applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and considering the unique aspects of child witness testimony, rejected the accused's denial, finding his evidence unreliable and incredible due to numerous contradictions and his extensive criminal record for dishonesty.

The court found the complainant's detailed narrative compelling and credible, despite minor inconsistencies, and ultimately found the accused guilty on all counts.

Paladin Labs Inc., as foreign representative for itself and Paladin Labs Canadian Holding Inc. (the Canadian Debtors), brought a motion under section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for recognition and enforcement of two orders granted by the United States Bankruptcy Court in their Chapter 11 cases: a Bidding Procedures Order and a Bar Date Order.

The motion was unopposed.

The court granted the motion, finding that recognition was consistent with principles of comity and Canadian public policy, and would enable the Canadian Debtors to proceed with the sale process to maximize asset value and ascertain claims.

The applicant creditor, Heliotrope Investment Corporation, applied for bankruptcy orders against the respondents, Martha and Gary Beach.

The applicant alleged the respondents owed debts exceeding $1,000 and had committed an act of bankruptcy by ceasing to meet their liabilities generally as they became due.

The respondents opposed the applications, arguing they had sufficient assets, the debts were disputed in related civil proceedings, and the applications were brought for an improper purpose.

The court found that the applicant established the debts and the act of bankruptcy.

The court rejected the respondents' arguments, finding no sufficient cause to dismiss or stay the applications, and issued the bankruptcy orders.

Dylon Duarte was convicted of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of Tyquan Brown.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which could range from 10 to 25 years.

The Crown sought 20 years, citing numerous aggravating factors including a history of domestic violence, after-the-fact conduct, and an element of planning.

The defence argued for a 10-12 year period, emphasizing lack of planning and the offender's remorse and efforts at rehabilitation.

The court found the murder to be within a domestic violence context, despite the victim being a stranger, due to the offender's rage and obsessive pursuit of his ex-partner leading to the killing.

Considering the aggravating factors and the expanded range for domestic violence murders (12-17 years), the court fixed the parole ineligibility period at 16 years.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-contact order with the victim's family.