Vincent V. Houvardas

The defendant, K.N., was charged with sexually assaulting M.M. The Crown proceeded by indictment, and K.N. pleaded not guilty.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant (M.M.) and the defendant (K.N.).

The court found M.M.'s testimony to be credible and reliable, despite a memory gap and delayed reporting, rejecting the defence's argument of fabrication.

K.N.'s testimony, which claimed consensual activity and an attempt to appease M.M. with text messages, was found to lack credibility, particularly due to inconsistencies with text messages where he admitted M.M. said "no" but he continued.

The court found K.N. guilty of sexual assault.

S.F. was found guilty after a summary trial of distributing intimate imagery of his girlfriend, M.G., without her consent, contrary to s. 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

He uploaded two recordings of them engaging in sexual intercourse to Pornhub.

Although the recordings were consensual, their distribution was not.

The videos were discovered by friends of the complainant and subsequently removed from Pornhub, but copies remained in circulation.

The defendant apologized and expressed remorse, but the complainant suffered significant emotional and social impact.

The court considered aggravating factors (abuse of intimate partner and trust, significant victim impact) and mitigating factors (first offender, highly educated, immediate apology, no vindictive motivation, good rehabilitation prospects).

The Crown sought a five-month jail sentence and 18 months probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected both extremes, finding a conditional discharge too lenient given the absence of a guilty plea, and incarceration excessive for a first offender in these circumstances.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 14 months probation, including conditions such as no contact with the victim, community service, and restrictions on possessing intimate images.

The accused, Bryan Babic, was charged with robbery and having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's vehicle being used in the robbery, his resemblance to the driver in surveillance footage, and items found in his vehicle.

The court found that while there was some compelling evidence, the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt due to weaknesses in the evidence and the absence of other corroborating factors like forensic evidence or recognition evidence.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The Crown applied to admit a witness's prior police statement under the 'past recollection recorded' exception to the hearsay rule or, alternatively, under the principled approach to hearsay, arguing for its threshold reliability.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the witness's memory loss was not genuine for the 'past recollection recorded' exception, and that the statement lacked sufficient procedural and substantive reliability under the principled approach due to issues with its recording, absence of oath/caution, and inconsistencies with other evidence.

The accused, Bryan Babic, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained in alleged violation of sections 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and 9 (arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application arose from his arrest for robbery and disguise with intent, following police identifying his vehicle as the getaway car from a prior robbery.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the high-risk take-down and arrest, and that the subsequent search of his vehicle's trunk was a lawful search incident to arrest, aimed at discovering evidence of the offence.

Both the section 9 and section 8 applications were dismissed.

The applicant, Kirk Matthew Fairley, sought to sever one count of assault (December 1, 2018) from five other counts (December 14, 2018) on an indictment, arguing potential prejudice from photographic evidence of the first assault.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Last to balance the risk of prejudice against the public interest in a single trial.

Despite acknowledging potential for impermissible propensity reasoning or credibility bolstering, the court found the factual nexus, lack of complexity, the accused's intention to testify on all counts, and administrative efficiency favored a joint trial.

The application to sever was dismissed, with the court noting that a clear jury instruction could mitigate prejudice.

The Crown applied for permission to allow a certified support dog to attend court beside the complainant during her testimony at a preliminary inquiry into allegations of historical sexual assault.

The court granted the application, finding that while the dog did not qualify as a "support person" under Section 486.1 of the Criminal Code, the Canadian Victims' Bill of Rights provided jurisdiction to allow the dog as a testimonial aid.

The court was satisfied that the dog's presence would not interfere with the proceedings or the accused's right to make full answer and defence.