Wayne Andrew Chorney

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.2 of the Criminal Code to permit the complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via videoconference from California.

The defence opposed the application, arguing it would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice due to the Crown's delay in notifying the complainant and the loss of in-person cross-examination.

The court granted the application, finding that the mandatory language of s. 714.2 applied since the witness was outside Canada, and the defence's concerns did not amount to a contravention of fundamental justice.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on an 'over 80' charge.

The trial judge had excluded breath test results under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding multiple breaches (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) because the police officer delayed making an ASD demand for 17 minutes to allow EMS to medically assess the respondent following a rollover collision.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by assuming the respondent was detained the moment the officer formed reasonable suspicion, without considering that the respondent was in the care of EMS for most of that time.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with assault and sexual assault against his wife.

The complainant alleged multiple instances of physical abuse and non-consensual anal and vaginal sex.

The accused denied the physical assaults and testified that the sexual encounters were consensual or stopped immediately upon the complainant expressing pain or lack of consent.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be deeply flawed due to inconsistencies, minimization of her role in the toxic marriage, and delayed disclosure.

Conversely, the accused's evidence was credible and unshaken.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

Lorne Clifford Clement was charged with sexual assault.

The trial focused on the credibility of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies with his prior police statement and admitted intoxication.

The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and compelling.

The court rejected arguments based on stereotypical behaviour of sexual assault victims, citing appellate authority.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The offender was found guilty of sexually abusing his young sister-in-law over several decades, involving sexual touching and digital penetration, while in a position of trust and authority.

The court considered aggravating factors including the offender's position of trust, the victim's extreme vulnerability, the considerable age difference, the duration (nine years) and frequency of the acts, and the serious impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's age, remarriage, and virtually no criminal record, though his health issues were not deemed exceptionally poor to impede incarceration.

The offender showed no remorse or insight into his conduct.

The court rejected both the Crown's (two years) and defence's (four months) sentencing recommendations as falling outside the acceptable range for such offences, emphasizing that denunciation and general deterrence must be paramount.

A five-year custodial sentence was imposed, along with a 10-year firearms ban, an order to provide a DNA sample, and a lifetime SOIRA order.

The Crown brought a similar fact application to admit evidence from two complainants (the accused's daughter and sister-in-law) to prove the actus reus and bolster credibility.

The court conducted a two-stage inquiry regarding collusion.

Despite the complainants' belief that they did not know details of each other's complaints, the close family relations and inconsistencies in disclosure details led the court to conclude that the Crown failed to satisfy its burden that the evidence was untainted by collusion.

Consequently, the application was dismissed without needing to balance probative value and prejudicial effect.

The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence from an undercover operation (Project O'Tamper) targeting a steroid dealer.

The Crown alleged the accused supplied cocaine to the target through a brief, unobserved encounter in a parking lot.

The court found the evidence created strong suspicion but did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted due to insufficient evidence directly connecting him to possession or trafficking of cocaine, and the existence of reasonable alternative inferences consistent with innocence.

The accused was charged with "over 80" contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code following a domestic dispute call.

Police officers attended the residence, detected alcohol on the accused's breath while he was operating a snow plow on his private property, but delayed making an approved screening device demand by approximately 12 minutes.

The court found breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter due to the failure to make the breath demand "forthwith" as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

Additionally, the Crown failed to establish that the breath tests were administered "as soon as practicable" as required by section 258(1)(c).

The accused was acquitted.