Appeared as counsel in 7 cases (2013–2018)
3 total
Self-defence raised a reasonable doubt on a one-punch assault charge.
The accused was tried on a charge of assault after admitting that he punched the complainant once in the face during a chaotic late-night altercation outside her home.
The central issue was whether the punch was justified under s. 34 of the Criminal Code.
The court found significant credibility and reliability problems in the complainant's and some civilian eyewitnesses' accounts, accepted much of the defence evidence, and was left with reasonable doubt about the extent of the assault beyond the single punch.
Applying the modern self-defence framework, the court held there was an air of reality to the defence and that the Crown failed to disprove the accused's reasonable belief in a threat of force, his defensive purpose, and the reasonableness of his response.
The charge was dismissed.
The court dismissed the Society's application for extended care, returning the child to the mother under a supervision order after finding the Society's restrictive policies exacerbated conflict.
The Society sought extended care for H.M., who was found in need of protection.
The mother, B.T., sought H.M.'s return.
The court found that while H.M. continued to need protection, the risk was low and B.T.'s parenting was adequate.
The court critically examined the Society's restrictive access policies and communication, which contributed to the strained relationship.
The final order placed H.M. in the mother's care under Society supervision for six months, with specific terms for communication and support, and no access for the father.
The accused was convicted of voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault, and forcible confinement after the court accepted the complainant's evidence.
The accused was charged with voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.
The Crown entered an acquittal for uttering threats.
The court assessed the credibility of the complainant and the accused, finding the complainant generally credible and her account supported by physical evidence, while the accused's testimony was unreliable and intentionally dishonest on material issues.
The court found the accused guilty of voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.
