The accused, Ahsanullah Salehi, was tried on multiple charges, including assault with a weapon and uttering threats, following a series of confrontations at a college campus.

The allegations involved two complainants, one of whom was allegedly struck with an imitation firearm and threatened.

The trial judge assessed the credibility of the complainants, the accused's police statement, and his girlfriend's testimony alongside campus surveillance footage.

Ultimately, the court found the accused guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and breach of probation, while acquitting him of one count of uttering threats.

The accused, R.E.G., was charged with assault and sexual assault against the complainant, K.R. The judge-alone trial focused on the complainant's testimony, as she was the sole witness.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including a clear motive to fabricate the complaint due to animus over perceived infidelity and relationship expectations.

Material inconsistencies in her testimony, deliberate vagueness, and lack of candour regarding post-offence contact with the accused further undermined her credibility.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

Courtney Dennis was found guilty of importing four kilograms of high-purity cocaine and resisting arrest.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence or, alternatively, six years.

The court found Dennis to be a principal in the importation scheme, not merely a courier, and that he threatened the couriers.

The judge considered the seriousness of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal history (including prior drug trafficking and firearm convictions), and the significant mitigation due to four years of restrictive house arrest bail.

The court imposed a total sentence of 11 years: 10.5 years for importation and 6 months consecutive for resisting arrest, along with ancillary orders.

The appellant, L.G., appealed his conviction for gross indecency and sexual assault, which occurred in 1985-1986 when the complainant was 14.

The appellant claimed the sexual activity in 1987 was consensual.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence due to inconsistencies with his police statement and implausibility, and found the defence witnesses' testimony incredible due to suspected collusion or tainting.

The trial judge accepted the complainant's consistent evidence, which was corroborated by independent, non-contentious details.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not reverse the burden of proof in assessing defence evidence and did not err in considering circumstantial evidence as confirmatory, as it was more consistent with the complainant's account.

The appellant, S.R., appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The appeal raised two grounds: alleged misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge and improper use of the appellant's confession to corroborate the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence or the confirmatory use of the confession, affirming that evidence can provide confirmatory weight even if it does not directly implicate the accused, as long as it supports credibility or reliability.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, R.K., appealed his conviction for sexual interference and an eight-year sentence.

The appeal raised nine grounds, including alleged errors in refusing production of the complainant's diary, improper use of the diary to enhance credibility, misapprehension of evidence, improper cross-examination on bad acts, overvaluing demeanour, improper corroboration by peripheral details, improper reliance on lack of motive to fabricate, and uneven scrutiny of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding both the conviction and the sentence, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and sentencing decision to be sound.

The appellant, H.P., appealed his sexual assault conviction, raising three grounds: whether his s. 276 voir dire testimony was compelled and improperly used against him contrary to s. 13 of the Charter; whether the cross-examination on the voir dire was overly broad; and whether the trial judge erred in finding corroboration of the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that s. 276 voir dire evidence is not compelled, the cross-examination was not unfair given the scope of the affidavits, and the trial judge's assessment of corroborative evidence was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault and forcible confinement, appealed his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no reviewable error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, credibility, and application of the burden of proof.

The court upheld the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's implausible account and acceptance of the complainant's evidence, despite minor inconsistencies.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to quash the unconstitutional victim surcharge order, with the balance of the sentence remaining in effect.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats to property, as well as his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The appeal raised issues regarding the trial judge's use of prior consistent statements, explanation of the complainant's conduct (Stockholm Syndrome), burden of proof, and reliance on the "ring of truth." The appellant also challenged the dangerous offender finding, arguing the trial judge failed to consider treatability and intractability at the designation phase and misapprehended expert evidence regarding recidivism and "burnout." The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no reversible error in the conviction or the dangerous offender designation and sentence.

Following guilty pleas to sexual interference and bail breaches, the court conducted a Gardiner hearing to determine whether the admitted intercourse was factually non-consensual for sentencing purposes, and also adjudicated related counts of uttering a threat, sexual assault, and sexual interference.

The court held that the complainant's account of forced intercourse was credible despite significant reliability problems, relying on the contemporaneous video statement, forensic DNA evidence confirming ejaculation, and post-event emotional state evidence used for limited permissible purposes.

The court rejected defence theories of fabrication based on fear of pregnancy, lateness for curfew, and alleged stereotypical expectations of victim behaviour.

The court found the intercourse occurred without actual consent, acquitted on the threat count because the particularized threat was not proven as directed to the complainant, and acquitted on the August 15 touching counts because the sexual nature of the act was not established.