Steven L. Kovacs

This criminal trial involved three defendants charged with various offences, including break and enter and aggravated assault, stemming from an altercation with a tenant.

The court heard conflicting accounts from the Crown's witness and the defence witnesses.

Applying the rule in R. v. W.D., the judge assessed the credibility of all principal witnesses, noting inconsistencies and weaknesses in both narratives, particularly concerning 911 calls and witness actions.

Ultimately, the court found significant reasons to doubt the credibility of all parties, leading to a reasonable doubt as to the events of the altercation.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and all charges were dismissed.

The offender was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm and three counts of breach of probation after attacking his cellmate in a correctional centre over a dispute about food.

The victim suffered fractured ribs, cuts requiring stitches, and bruising.

The court found the custodial setting to be an aggravating factor, as the victim was defenceless in a confined space.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for the assault, less 2.5 months of pre-sentence credit, and concurrent 6-month sentences for the breaches, followed by three years of probation.

The accused was charged with five counts of sexual assault and related offences against his 12-year-old sister-in-law.

The allegations included unwanted kissing, touching, and forced fellatio.

The accused testified and denied all allegations.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility.

While finding the complainant's evidence of kissing and touching could reasonably be true, the court noted inconsistencies, delayed disclosure, and implausibilities regarding the more serious allegations.

The court concluded the evidence as a whole raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The appellant, who acted as the getaway driver in two robberies, appealed his sentence of 18 months' incarceration.

He argued for a conditional sentence or a shorter reformatory term, citing his youth, lack of criminal record, and the lesser sentences of his accomplices.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence but found the 18-month term failed to adequately reflect the disparity between the appellant's role and that of his accomplices, as well as his mitigating factors.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the sentence was reduced to 12 months' incarceration.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had relied on evidence of an incident at a Christmas party seven years prior to the alleged assault to infer that the appellant had a sexual inclination toward the complainant.

The Court of Appeal held that this inference was unreasonable and central to the conviction, requiring the verdict to be quashed.

However, the Court rejected the argument that the verdict itself was unreasonable under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, as a reasonable trier of fact could have accepted the complainant's evidence.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant challenged sexual assault convictions and sought leave to appeal sentence following a jury trial.

He argued the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury, that the verdicts were unreasonable given internal inconsistencies and admitted untruths in the complainant's prior statements, and that the sentencing judge accepted unduly aggravating facts.

The court held the impugned jury instructions were adequate and appropriate, including the instruction drawn almost verbatim from authority concerning youthful complainants.

It further held there was evidence on which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could convict and found no error in the sentencing judge's factual findings or in the sentences imposed.