Timothy R. Lipson

The accused, a grade 8 teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference alleged to have occurred in the mid‑1990s against a student.

The complainant described repeated sexualized conduct including kissing and masturbation during tutoring sessions and other interactions, while the accused denied any sexual contact.

The court accepted that certain inappropriate conduct occurred, including hand‑holding and expressions of affection, but identified reliability concerns in the complainant’s evidence, including inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and the role of therapy‑recovered memories.

Applying the criminal standard of proof and the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court concluded the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused, a former elementary school teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a student during the 1994-95 school year when the complainant was 13-14 years old.

The complainant alleged that the accused engaged in inappropriate sexual contact including kissing, hand-holding, and masturbation over several months.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming his conduct was limited to appropriate academic support and encouragement.

The trial judge found significant reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding recovered memories obtained through therapy and the provenance of an Italian pendant allegedly given as a gift.

Although the judge found the complainant's testimony generally credible and preferred it over the accused's evidence, the judge concluded that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to these reliability concerns and reasonable doubt arising from the accused's testimony.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault and robbery.

The victim was a stranger whom the accused contacted by phone and met at a subway station.

In a stairwell, the accused used threats and force to attempt sexual intercourse with the victim, and subsequently stole her cell phone.

The court imposed a sentence of 20 months in custody less credit for pre-sentence custody, plus three years probation, along with ancillary orders including a SOIRA order for 20 years and a weapons prohibition for 10 years.

The court balanced aggravating factors including the use of threats, the compounding robbery, and high risk for sexual recidivism against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, youthful first offender status, and family support.

The accused, charged with drug and firearms offences, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence seized from their apartment.

The police had conducted a warrantless entry to secure the apartment while awaiting a search warrant, claiming exigent circumstances.

The court found no exigent circumstances existed and that the police had actually conducted an unauthorized search during the entry.

Furthermore, the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant contained unconstitutionally obtained and misleading information, and the warrant itself failed to specify the apartment number.

The court found multiple serious breaches of section 8 of the Charter and excluded the seized evidence under section 24(2).

The accused, a young person sentenced as an adult, pleaded guilty to break and enter, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, and possession of restricted firearms.

The offences involved a home invasion where a neighbour was shot, and a separate incident where another victim was shot at a party.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, emphasizing deterrence, denunciation, and the accused's rehabilitative potential.

The accused was sentenced to 20 months' custody in addition to 52 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years' probation.

The accused was charged with impaired operation, over 80 mgs, and assault with intent to resist arrest following a traffic stop where he exhibited erratic driving and refused to comply with police demands.

The over 80 mgs charge was dismissed as no breath samples were taken.

The assault charge was dismissed because the arrest for failing to identify under the Highway Traffic Act was deemed unlawful, as the officer did not request alternative identification.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on his driving conduct, physical symptoms of impairment, and bizarre behaviour.

A Charter application alleging excessive force during the arrest was dismissed, with the court finding the officers' use of force was measured and justified given the accused's resistance.