Steven Richard Dallal

Trevor Clarke pleaded guilty to manslaughter for punching Paul Tonna, who subsequently died from a head injury.

The Crown sought a sentence of seven to nine years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or conditional sentence.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, victim impact, and the offender's background, including his Indigenous heritage and significant rehabilitative efforts.

Applying Gladue principles, the court found that while denunciation and deterrence were primary, rehabilitation was a significant objective.

The court imposed a sentence of 28 months' imprisonment, reduced from 30 months due to harsh pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years of probation.

A conditional sentence was deemed unavailable as a penitentiary sentence was required.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and breach of bail conditions arising from a short-lived relationship with the complainant.

The Crown's case relied almost entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be highly inconsistent, contradictory, and in some instances, entirely fabricated, including a bizarre story about being threatened by the mafia disguised as police officers.

Applying the principles of reasonable doubt to credibility findings, the court concluded it was impossible to determine which material parts of the complainant's testimony were true.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The Crown applied to adduce similar fact evidence of prior discreditable conduct by the accused, involving two other complainants in different cities.

The Crown argued the accused had a modus operandi of seeking out vulnerable women in homeless shelters or transit, engaging in short intense relationships, and committing sexual assaults accompanied by physical violence.

Applying the Handy framework, the court found the proposed evidence lacked sufficient similarity and strength, noting significant dissimilarities in the circumstances and weaknesses in the prior evidence.

The court concluded the evidence had little probative value and its admission would cause undue moral prejudice.

The application was denied.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from an incident in his apartment: uttering death threats, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, robbery, and administering an overpowering drug.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies regarding timelines, her failure to leave despite multiple opportunities, and her motive to fabricate (to explain her late arrival home to an angry boyfriend).

Although the judge found the complainant was likely truthful about the overall events, a reasonable doubt arose from the accumulated inconsistencies.

The accused was acquitted on all five counts but convicted of the included offence of Theft Under $5000, as the evidence established he converted the complainant's property.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing it was manifestly inadequate given the nature of the offences and the respondent's record for violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the sentence was extremely lenient, the trial judge had the benefit of a compelling Gladue report and was entitled to give considerable weight to restorative justice principles.