Sheena MacDougall

The Crown appealed acquittals for sexual assault and sexual interference, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the respondent's state (asleep/awake) and provided insufficient reasons.

The appellate court found the trial judge's reasons deficient, failing to articulate findings of fact or explain how the evidence of the respondent's actions could be reconciled with the complainant's testimony about him being asleep.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered before a different judge.

This mid-trial ruling addresses the appropriate timing for directed verdict applications in joint criminal trials, particularly when rulings may differ between co-accused.

The accused, Marsha Gonzales and Marshall Gonzales, brought directed verdict applications at the close of the Crown's case.

The court ruled that such applications should be determined and rendered at the close of the Crown's case, before the accused elects whether to call evidence.

The court dismissed Marsha Gonzales's application but granted Marshall Gonzales's application, dismissing the case against him.

The decision emphasizes that the risk of inconsistent verdicts is outweighed by the accused's right to a fair trial and full answer and defence.

The Crown sought an adjournment on the day of trial due to the complainant's unavailability for day surgery.

The defence opposed the application, citing the Crown's delay in subpoenaing the witness and lack of diligence.

The court applied the Darville test and considered the totality of circumstances, finding the Crown guilty of laches due to unexplained delays and lack of information regarding the complainant's surgery.

The adjournment was denied.

A young person, M.W., was charged with murder, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon following a group attack.

The Crown's case relied heavily on video identification, comparing high-quality surveillance footage of the accused from his residence with a low-quality cellphone video of the attack.

The court found that while the accused was clearly identifiable in the surveillance video, the clothing in the cellphone video only resembled, but could not definitively be identified as, the clothing worn by the accused.

Other circumstantial evidence, such as phone calls and post-attack behaviour, was deemed insufficient to corroborate participation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges due to the Crown's failure to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, a young person identified as M.W., applied for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an unreasonable delay in bringing the case to trial.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion was 20.8 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, specifically identifying periods attributable to the defence.

It found that the defence's rejection of earlier trial dates without providing alternative availability constituted defence-caused delay.

After subtracting 9 months and 16 days of defence-caused delay, the net delay was calculated at 11 months and 3 days, which is well below the Jordan ceiling.

The court further determined that the defence failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite proceedings or that the case markedly exceeded its reasonable time requirements, as required for delays below the presumptive ceiling.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was denied.

The applicant, CT, brought an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude Facebook messages from evidence in his sexual offence trial.

He argued the messages were seized without a warrant, breaching his s. 8 Charter rights, and that their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court found that the police conduct did not constitute a search or seizure engaging s. 8, as the complainant voluntarily provided the messages.

Furthermore, the court held that CT did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the messages, particularly given the exploitative nature of the adult-child relationship.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault against his estranged common-law wife.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, which the court found to be inconsistent and unreliable due to material discrepancies between her trial evidence and prior police statements, as well as her admitted willingness to provide false information to police on previous occasions.

The evidence of child witnesses, introduced via Agreed Statements of Fact, also contradicted the complainant's account regarding one of the alleged assaults.

The court concluded that the complainant demonstrated carelessness with the truth, negatively impacting her credibility.

Consequently, the court found the accused not guilty on all three charges, as the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault arising from a first date with a 16-year-old complainant.

The Crown alleged multiple acts of unwanted sexual touching including fondling of breasts and genitals, and forced oral sex.

The accused admitted to the fondling but denied forcing the complainant to perform fellatio, claiming it was consensual.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of sexual assault for the fondling of the complainant's breasts and inner thigh and crotch area, but acquitted him of the allegation of forced fellatio, finding a reasonable doubt existed regarding whether the oral sex was non-consensual.

The defendant was charged with failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that a police officer lawfully demanded a breath sample into an approved screening device (ASD), which the defendant refused.

The defendant argued that the demand was invalid because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that he had alcohol in his body, and alternatively, that the demand was not made "forthwith" as required by statute.

The court found that on the totality of the circumstances, the officer objectively lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion, and alternatively, that the Crown failed to establish the demand was made forthwith.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly punching the complainant outside a Tim Hortons in Brantford, causing a non-displaced cranial fracture and requiring hospitalization.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the assailant.

While surveillance video from inside the establishment clearly showed the accused present, the outside video quality was poor and the Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and inferences from clothing descriptions.

The court found that the complainant's identification was unreliable due to intoxication and head injury, and a witness's evidence was contradicted by the video.

The court concluded that while the accused was the most likely perpetrator, the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt based on the poor quality outside video and generic clothing descriptors.