William Markle

This is a sentencing decision for Jesse King-Norris, who was charged with assault causing bodily harm during a Junior C hockey game, resulting in the victim sustaining a broken jaw.

The Crown sought a conditional jail sentence, while the defence argued for an absolute or conditional discharge, citing mitigating factors and the commonality of fighting in hockey.

The court acknowledged the unique context of hockey violence and the defendant's good character and remorse but denied a discharge due to the severity and foreseeability of the injury and the public interest in deterring serious on-ice assaults.

A suspended sentence with probation and community service was imposed.

The accused, a vocal music teacher, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 10‑year‑old student at a school.

The complainant testified to multiple assaults occurring during after‑school detentions in the music room.

The trial judge applied the principles in R. v. W.(D.) and assessed both credibility and reliability of the evidence.

Although the complainant was found credible and clearly traumatized, objective evidence regarding class schedules, the physical layout and accessibility of the classroom, and inaccuracies in the complainant’s recollection raised significant reliability concerns.

These factors created a reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged assaults occurred as described.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including assault, choking, and pointing a firearm, arising from an alleged domestic incident with his common-law spouse.

The complainant reported the incident over a year later, amidst a contentious custody dispute.

The trial judge found significant issues with the complainant's credibility, including inconsistencies in her testimony, a threatening email sent to the accused's brother, and the timing of her disclosure.

Finding the corroborative evidence insufficient to overcome these credibility concerns, the court acquitted the accused on all counts due to reasonable doubt.

The accused, an uncle by marriage and high school visual arts teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a 17-year-old niece who lived with him and his wife.

The Crown alleged that on February 15, 2010, the accused engaged in a pattern of grooming and sexual misconduct, including touching the complainant without consent in her bedroom.

The accused denied the allegations at trial but had made admissions to police.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's trial testimony as fabricated rationalizations, and accepted his police admissions as genuine confessions.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual exploitation and stayed the sexual assault charge at the Crown's request.