Vicki Hentz

The accused, Per Polderman, was charged with assault following an altercation with the complainant, Mipha Koh, during a breakup.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, noting inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding her prior statements, her recollection of events, and her motivations.

The court found the complainant to be the aggressor, having damaged the accused's property and assaulted him.

The accused's actions, including using his forearm to create distance and pulling the complainant from his car, were found to be reasonable acts of self-defence and defence of property under Section 35 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was acquitted of the charge.

The offender, an 18-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm after stabbing two victims in a vehicle.

The offender argued for a non-custodial or short reformatory sentence, citing his need for upcoming abdominal surgery due to a prior gunshot wound.

The court found that correctional facilities could adequately accommodate his medical needs and that the severity of the unprovoked, premeditated attack required a penitentiary sentence.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 33 months in custody, less pre-sentence credit.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after stabbing two individuals sitting in a vehicle.

The accused claimed he acted in defence of his mother, believing she was about to be run over by the vehicle.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding that the vehicle was parked and not moving, and that the accused stabbed the victims out of revenge for earlier physical altercations.

The court concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in lawful self-defence and found him guilty of all charges.

The appellant appealed a conviction for failing to stop a motor vehicle for police contrary to s. 249.1(1) of the Criminal Code, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly consider expert testimony concerning line of sight during a police pursuit.

The appellant contended that roadway configuration and intermittent loss of visual contact meant he could not have known police were pursuing him.

The court held that the trial judge was entitled to give little or no weight to the defence expert’s opinion regarding what the parties could have seen during the pursuit and that the officer’s evidence supported the findings regarding the appellant’s knowledge and conduct.

Applying the standard of palpable and overriding error, the court found no reviewable error in the trial judge’s reasoning.

The evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that the appellant knowingly failed to stop for police.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in marijuana between November 15, 2010 and March 7, 2011.

The Crown's case relied primarily on wiretap intercepts of the accused's phone conversations with an alleged drug trafficker, combined with surveillance evidence.

The central issues were whether the accused was the party to the intercepted conversations and whether the evidence established a conspiracy to traffic in marijuana.

The court found that the accused was indeed a party to the conversations and that the evidence established a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected the proposition that mere knowledge by a seller that a buyer intends to resell is sufficient for conspiracy; rather, the Crown must prove an agreement to pursue a mutual criminal objective.

The court found that the accused agreed to supply marijuana on an ongoing basis as part of the alleged trafficker's distribution scheme.