William Wade

The accused, Brandon Aubin, faced four charges: three Criminal Code offences related to a residential basement fire and one Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) offence for Butane honey oil production.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on expert fire investigation evidence.

The defence presented an alternative fire origin theory and the accused testified, denying the introduction of Butane.

The court dismissed the mischief endangering life charge but found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the two arson charges and the CDSA production charge, concluding that the fire was caused by the ignition of Butane vapour introduced by the accused shortly before the incident.

The accused, K.D.B., was charged with sexual assault, administration of a stupefying substance (lorazepam), and breaches of undertaking and firearm prohibition.

The Crown withdrew two firearm-related counts.

The complainant testified that the accused provided her with a pill for anxiety, after which she experienced severe heaviness and memory loss, waking up next to the accused with semen on her back.

The accused denied the allegations, presenting an alibi and challenging the complainant's credibility.

The court found the accused not credible due to inconsistencies, exaggerations, and failure to call corroborating witnesses.

The complainant was found credible and reliable, supported by expert toxicological evidence confirming lorazepam in her system consistent with her timeline and described effects.

The court concluded that the accused intentionally administered lorazepam to facilitate sexual assault.

K.D.B. was found guilty of sexual assault, administration of a stupefying drug, and breach of undertaking and firearm prohibition.

The accused, K.B., was charged with sexual assault and related collateral charges.

The Crown alleged K.B. sexually assaulted the complainant, SW, while driving her home.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant, the accused, and the accused's spouse, TL, noting inconsistencies and potential motives.

The complainant had significant mental health issues and was under the influence of medication and marijuana at the time of the alleged incident.

The court found that the evidence, taken as a whole, left a state of uncertainty, and the Crown failed to prove K.B.'s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

K.B. was acquitted.

G.B. was sentenced following convictions for sexual offences against his two daughters, J.B. (17) and A.B. (14-15).

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, victim vulnerability, the number of victims, the invasive nature of the assault on J.B., and G.B.'s substance abuse as an aggravating risk factor.

Mitigating factors included community support and G.B.'s disadvantaged background as a survivor of sexual abuse.

The defence proposed a global sentence of 3 years and 9 months, while the Crown sought 5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3 years and 9 months (including 9 months pre-sentence custody), consisting of 2 years for the offence against J.B. and 1 year consecutive for the offence against A.B. Various ancillary orders were made, including a DNA order, SOIRA order for life, weapons prohibition, and a 10-year contact prohibition for A.B.