Stacey Siopis

The defendant was charged with sexual assault of the complainant on June 10, 2016.

The complainant testified that the defendant invited her to his apartment under the pretext of retrieving a mug, and while there, hugged, kissed, and rubbed her body without consent.

The defendant denied ever being alone with the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and internally consistent, corroborated by her friend's testimony and video evidence from building security cameras.

The court rejected the defendant's mistaken belief in consent defence, finding no air of reality to the defence and concluding that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault.

The offender, Christopher Goulbourne, pleaded guilty to simple robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and breaking and entering related to a home invasion.

This sentencing decision addresses the fit sentence for these offenses, considering his lengthy criminal record, including a prior armed bank robbery for which he was already serving a seven-year sentence.

The court applied principles of sentencing, including general and specific deterrence, protection of the public, proportionality, and totality.

The judge determined a global sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment for the home invasion offenses, to be served in addition to the remaining four years of his previous sentence, resulting in a total of eleven and a half years of incarceration.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision on January 15, 2015.

The trial involved a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the arrest and the admissibility of breath sample evidence.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for arrest, having only reasonable suspicion, and that the officer's credibility and reliability were seriously compromised by inadequate notes, failure to use required recording equipment, and evasive testimony.

The court concluded that the defendant's s. 9 Charter rights against arbitrary detention were violated.

Under s. 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence obtained after the arrest, finding that the seriousness of the state misconduct outweighed other considerations.

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.

A young person charged with multiple firearms offences brought a motion to stay the charges based on a violation of his Charter right under section 11(b) to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 15.7 months from the laying of charges on December 10, 2011 to the scheduled trial commencement on March 25, 2013.

The court applied the analytical framework from R. v. Morin and considered the length of delay, any waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the accused.

The court found that the delay was attributable to the inherent time requirements of the case and was neutral as against both the Crown and the defendant.

The court also found that any prejudice suffered by the defendant due to restrictive bail conditions did not outweigh society's interest in having serious firearms charges tried on the merits.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The accused, a medical assistant at a colonoscopy clinic, was charged with sexual assault on a patient who alleged he was fondled multiple times during a routine colonoscopy procedure.

The complainant testified he was sedated but conscious throughout the procedure and experienced excruciating pain.

The accused denied the allegations and testified he had no specific recollection of the complainant's procedure.

The defence called the performing physician and an expert psychiatrist in psychopharmacology.

The court found the accused credible and his denial sincere.

The court also found significant frailties in the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies regarding his position during the procedure, his recollection of the room layout, the type of gown worn, and the timing of his complaint.

Expert evidence established that anaesthesia-induced sexual hallucinations are a recognized pharmacological phenomenon.

The court acquitted the accused, finding the crown had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.