S. Yu

The offender was convicted of four counts of sexual assault, one count of assault, and one count of forcible confinement against an intimate partner.

The offences occurred over a one-week period and involved forced sexual intercourse, physical violence, and manipulation.

The offender had a significant prior criminal record for similar offences against intimate partners and was on probation at the time.

Mitigating factors included an intellectual deficiency and restrictive bail conditions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years, reduced by 221 days for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 6 years and 144 days.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit photographs of the defendant, Jordan O’Maly, taken at police stations on matters unrelated to the current charges.

The evidence included stills showing the defendant wearing specific clothing (dark athletic jacket with three stripes, white belt with circular metallic buckle) and having a bandaged hand shortly after the alleged stabbing, and later photographs of scars on his hands.

The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect test, finding the evidence highly probative for identification due to the unique combination of clothing and hand injuries, which corroborated other circumstantial evidence like blood DNA and gas station video.

The court determined that any prejudicial effect arising from the defendant's association with police could be mitigated through appropriate limiting instructions to the jury or by editing the evidence.

The motion to admit the evidence was granted.

The appellant, Vu Truong, appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal raised two issues: whether the trial judge properly determined the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the trial judge unevenly scrutinized the appellant's evidence compared to the police officer's.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge applied the correct standard of proof and did not unfairly scrutinize the evidence.

The court noted numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities in the appellant's testimony, contrasting with the consistency and common-sense nature of the police officer's evidence.