Wendy Elizabeth Oughtred

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of a minor victim.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence while defence counsel sought two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a three-year concurrent sentence, finding that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the abuse of a child under eighteen years of age.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, lifetime sex offender registration, a twenty-year section 161 order restricting contact with children, and a communication prohibition with the victim during incarceration.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code and one count of attempting to disarm a police officer contrary to section 270.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an incident on December 15, 2010, at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington, where the accused, who was admitted under the Mental Health Act, became agitated when informed he would receive injectable medication.

The trial proceeded over several days spanning approximately 15 months.

The court found the accused not guilty on all counts, determining that the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment is highly critical of both hospital staff and police conduct, finding serious credibility issues with key witnesses and evidence of excessive use of force by police.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of assault against his domestic partner, arising from incidents involving a dog dish and a wicker chair.

He was acquitted of several other related charges.

On appeal, the appellant argued the convictions were unreasonable given the trial judge's finding that the complainant's evidence was incredible and unreliable.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no basis to distinguish the convictions from the acquittals, and noting the lack of confirmatory evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and acquittals were substituted.

The appellant appealed a narcotics importation conviction entered after a guilty plea following an unsuccessful voir dire seeking exclusion of cocaine found during a border strip search.

The court upheld the trial judge’s finding that customs officers had reasonable grounds to suspect contraband under s. 98 of the Customs Act, although the threshold was met only minimally.

While breaches of ss. 10(b) and 8 of the Charter were found because the search proceeded before the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel, the evidence was properly treated as non-conscriptive and, in any event, discoverable.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court deferred to the trial judge’s conclusion that exclusion would do greater harm to the repute of the administration of justice than admission.

The applicant was injured when the public transit bus he was riding braked suddenly.

He received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them, alleging he was not substantially unable to perform his essential tasks and had defrauded the insurer.

The arbitrator found that an accident had occurred and caused injury, but that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks after June 1991, as his inability to pursue his ambitions was due to a pre-existing depressive illness rather than the accident.

The insurer's claim of fraud was dismissed, and the applicant was awarded the expenses of the arbitration.