Stephanie Esther Baker

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from two separate incidents of domestic violence against an intimate partner.

The first incident on August 1, 2019 involved assault causing bodily harm, and the second on November 11, 2019 involved assault with a weapon.

The accused also faced charges for breaching probation conditions and a recognizance.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance.

The court acquitted the accused of harassment and uttering threats, finding insufficient evidence on those charges.

The decision emphasizes the pattern of controlling and aggressive behaviour by the accused toward the complainant.

The accused, John Leach, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code of Canada, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and a new plan of care as a material change in circumstances.

The accused, a 44-year-old with no criminal record, faced over 20 charges including domestic offences, human trafficking allegations, and weapons offences.

The court conducted a bail hearing de novo.

While the primary ground for detention was not met, the court found that detention was necessary on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The proposed plan of care was deemed insufficient to mitigate the risk of reoffending, particularly given the serious nature of the firearms charges (possession of non-hunting weapons, including a sawed-off shotgun and pistols, after a police standoff).

The court also considered the impact of COVID-19 but found it did not substantially alter the analysis in this specific case.

The application for release was dismissed.

A youth was charged with sexual assault under the Criminal Code following an incident at a party on January 30, 2016.

The complainant, a 15-year-old girl, consumed significant quantities of alcohol and had no memory of the alleged assault.

The Crown relied primarily on the testimony of a witness who claimed to have found the accused and complainant together in a locked bedroom.

The defence challenged the reliability of the witness testimony and argued there was insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the witness evidence to be fraught with inconsistencies, contradictions between trial testimony and police statements, and significant reliability concerns.

The court acquitted the accused, finding the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that force was applied or that any force took place in circumstances of a sexual nature.

The accused, Ghyslain Hebert, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was consent to sexual intercourse with the complainant, R.B. The court found the complainant's evidence credible, noting the accused's "boundary issues" and the complainant's actions being driven by fear rather than consent.

The defense of honest but mistaken belief in consent was rejected as the accused's actions (tearing clothing, telling the complainant to "shut up") were inconsistent with a reasonable belief in consent.

The Crown proved both the physical and mental elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and attempting to choke the complainant during the assault.

The case turned largely on credibility, with conflicting accounts provided by the complainant and the accused.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court assessed plausibility, corroborative circumstances, injuries, and contemporaneous text messages.

The court found the complainant’s testimony credible and consistent with the surrounding evidence, including physical injuries and her immediate distress following the incident.

The accused’s evidence was rejected as implausible and inconsistent.

The Crown proved all three offences beyond a reasonable doubt.