Simran Dosanjh

The defendant, Jordan Maxwell, was charged with sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant alleged that Maxwell sexually assaulted her and threatened her life while she was babysitting his children.

Maxwell denied the allegations.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.

While finding the complainant more credible and believable than the defendant, the court noted inconsistencies and uncertainties in the complainant's evidence regarding timing and details, which prevented the Crown from proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found not guilty.

I.C. was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference against his stepdaughter, A.W., relating to a "Horsey Incident" that occurred between 2008 and 2010.

The sexual assault charge was conditionally stayed.

The court, in this Part 2 sentencing decision, determined a fit sentence after re-evaluating facts based on the "Horsey Incident" only.

Aggravating factors included the breach of trust, the complainant's young age (8-10), the incident occurring in the family home, physical restraint, and the significant impact on the complainant and her mother.

Mitigating factors included I.C. being a first offender, having no criminal record, a low risk of re-offence, and being gainfully employed.

The Crown sought 18 months to 2 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or intermittent incarceration.

The court, guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in *Friesen* and the Ontario Court of Appeal's guidance on conditional sentences for child sexual offences, imposed a 10-month custodial sentence, along with various ancillary orders, including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and a s. 161 prohibition order with an exception for biological daughters subject to family court approval.

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against his stepdaughter.

Because the jury's verdict was ambiguous regarding which of the two alleged incidents they found proven, the sentencing judge was required to make independent findings of fact for the purpose of sentencing.

Applying the Ferguson framework, the court assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found the first incident proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but harboured a reasonable doubt regarding the second incident.

The court directed counsel to provide further submissions on sentence based on these factual findings.

Correy Dunn was charged with Over 80 and impaired driving following a motor vehicle accident.

The defence argued for exclusion of evidence due to Charter breaches, specifically concerning a delay in the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand and the muting of police body-worn cameras (BWCs), and challenged the Crown's proof of driver identity.

The court found that the accused was not detained prior to the ASD demand, thus the "forthwith" requirement for the demand was applied flexibly and not breached.

The BWC muting, while an erroneous interpretation of policy, did not prejudice the accused's right to make full answer and defence or constitute an abuse of process, as the muted conversations were not material to the grounds for the ASD demand.

The court also found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver based on circumstantial evidence.

Consequently, all evidence was admissible, and the accused was found guilty on both counts.

The appellant, Wen-Chi Tsai, appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing her claim for an interest in property based on unjust enrichment and joint family venture against her former cohabitant, Lucien Dugal (now deceased, represented by his estate trustees).

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that there was no unjust enrichment or joint family venture, concluding that the parties maintained separate finances and that any contributions by the appellant were offset by benefits received.

The appeal was dismissed.