S.E. Marin

The accused was convicted after a summary trial of three counts of assault, one count of forcible confinement, one count of threatening bodily harm, and one count of failing to comply with probation.

All offences occurred on May 4, 2012, and involved a series of altercations between the accused and his wife.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record documenting predisposition for violence towards intimate partners, with four prior domestic violence convictions since 2004.

The court imposed an 18-month jail sentence, the maximum available, along with three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, mandatory counselling for substance abuse, anger management, and domestic violence, and a strong recommendation for residential treatment.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on multiple firearm and weapons offences following a search warrant execution at the accused's residence.

The accused was charged with possession of prohibited firearms, unauthorized possession, careless storage, and related offences.

The Crown conceded insufficient evidence on one count of pointing a firearm.

The court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to commit on charges relating to "obtained by crime" and on charges relating to items found in a common basement area.

The court discharged the accused on counts relating to knowledge that firearms were obtained by crime due to lack of evidence of acquisition.

The court committed the accused to trial on counts relating to possession of items found in the basement based on circumstantial evidence of knowledge and control.

The court discharged the accused on a threatening death charge due to lack of evidence of communication of the threat.

Following a conviction for assault causing bodily harm after a judge-alone trial, the accused brought a motion to re-open the trial on the grounds that trial fairness required such an exceptional remedy.

The accused had been self-represented for most of the trial after discharging his initial counsel.

Post-conviction, police occurrence reports were disclosed revealing the complainant's ex-partner's history of domestic violence.

The accused sought to testify and raise a self-defence claim.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the decision not to testify and the scope of cross-examination reflected deliberate tactical choices made with competent counsel, and that the new evidence was not relevant to the trial strategy actually employed.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and refusing to provide a suitable breath sample following a three-vehicle collision at an intersection.

The Crown alleged the accused was speeding, driving erratically, and ran a red light while impaired by alcohol.

The accused denied consuming alcohol and claimed he entered the intersection on an amber light.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts based on credible police and civilian witness testimony, rejection of the accused's testimony as unreliable, and evidence of impaired judgment and alcohol consumption.