S. Nichols

The appellant, Jamal Esho, appealed his convictions for assaulting his spouse and threatening his spouse and step-daughter.

The grounds of appeal included the improper admission of emails as prior consistent statements, the admission of prior acts of discreditable conduct, and the trial judge's failure to appreciate evidence or address inconsistencies, leading to an unreasonable verdict.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the emails and prior acts were admissible for narrative and context in domestic violence cases and to rebut allegations of recent fabrication.

The court found the trial judge adequately addressed inconsistencies and that the verdict was reasonable.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL following a motor vehicle collision on September 8, 2012.

The Crown withdrew the Over 80 charge after brief evidence.

At trial, the Crown's case rested primarily on the observations of Sergeant Crane, who noted glossy eyes and a scent of alcohol, combined with Intoxilyzer readings.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of contemporaneous notes regarding key observations, the lack of observable signs of impairment at the scene, and the absence of expert evidence relating the BAC readings to the accused's driving ability.

The charge was dismissed.

The applicant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol arising from a serious motor vehicle accident.

She brought a Charter application under sections 11(b) and 24(1) seeking a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the laying of the Information to trial was approximately 12 months and 21 days.

The court found that approximately 8 weeks constituted neutral intake delay, leaving approximately 10.5 months of institutional delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the delay fell slightly outside the Morin guideline of 8-10 months, the guideline was not strictly applicable given the complexity of the case involving a serious multi-vehicle collision requiring toxicology evidence.

The court found minimal prejudice to the applicant and determined that the societal interest in adjudicating the matter on its merits outweighed any Charter concerns.

The Crown objected to the introduction of certain evidence on the basis that it offended the collateral fact rule.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 12-year-old complainant.

The defence sought to introduce evidence to impeach the credibility of the complainant's mother and support the theory that the allegations were false and made to deflect responsibility from the mother's own inappropriate conduct toward the accused's autistic son.

The court considered three categories of proposed evidence and applied the collateral fact rule and its exceptions.