Stephanie Marple

The accused was charged with four sexual offences against a child complainant: two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference (touching for a sexual purpose), occurring during two distinct time periods.

The first alleged incident (the "shopping incident") occurred in May or June 2011 when the accused was left alone with the complainant.

The second set of allegations (the "babysitting incidents") involved repeated alleged touching over approximately 18 months between January 2012 and June 2013.

The Crown called the complainant and her mother as witnesses.

The accused testified in his own defence, denying the allegations and providing alternative explanations for the complainant's account.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability issues with the Crown's evidence, including material inconsistencies in the complainant's account, the absence of the grandmother as a witness despite her alleged presence during most of the alleged abuse, and implausibilities regarding the complainant's delayed disclosure.

While the judge concluded the accused was "probably guilty," the Crown failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts but was subject to a common law peace bond for three years.

The offender was convicted by a jury of theft over $5,000 for stealing approximately $21,600 from his employer while working as a vending machine route driver.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for employee breach of trust cases, rejecting the defence's request for an intermittent sentence.

The offender was sentenced to four months' incarceration, one year of probation, 50 hours of community service, and ordered to pay full restitution.

The applicant, found guilty of theft over $5,000, brought a constitutional challenge under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, seeking a declaration of invalidity for s. 742.1(f)(viii) of the Criminal Code.

This provision prohibits conditional sentences for theft over $5,000.

The applicant argued the provision was arbitrary and overbroad, contrary to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the provision engaged liberty rights under s. 7, it did not offend the principles of fundamental justice as it was neither overbroad nor arbitrary, serving Parliament's objective to emphasize denunciation and deterrence for serious property offences.

The applicant was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following a single-vehicle collision.

The applicant brought a Garofoli application to exclude blood sample evidence obtained by search warrant, alleging that the Information to Obtain was legally deficient and violated Charter section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The applicant challenged three areas: the characterization of the odour of alcohol, the stated reasons for inability to provide a breath sample, and the adequacy of the police investigation into the collision circumstances.

The court found that while certain statements in the affidavit were erroneous or omitted, after excision and proper amplification, reasonable and probable grounds remained for the warrant's issuance.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while over 80 and impaired operation following a single-vehicle collision.

Police found the accused trapped in the driver's seat of a heavily damaged vehicle at 4:00 a.m.

Blood samples taken at 6:30 a.m. showed a BAC of 167 mgs per 100 mls, with expert evidence establishing the BAC at the time of collision would have been 172-222 mgs per 100 mls.

The Crown failed to establish the specific time of driving.

The court dismissed the operation charges but convicted on the included offence of care or control, finding the statutory presumption applied and was not rebutted.

The court also found a realistic risk of danger existed.