3 total
Offender sentenced to 24 months' incarceration for sexual assault and assault against an intimate partner.
The offender was convicted after trial of sexual assault and assault against his intimate partner.
The sexual assault involved forced non-consensual intercourse where the offender failed to stop despite the victim's pleas.
The court weighed the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the violent nature of the offence against the offender's limited criminal record and personal circumstances.
The court imposed a global sentence of 24 months' incarceration, comprising 23 months for the sexual assault and 1 month consecutive for the assault, followed by 12 months of probation.
Accused found guilty of sexual assault and assault against intimate partner; mistaken belief in consent rejected.
The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, uttering threats, and unlawful confinement against his intimate partner.
The unlawful confinement charge was dismissed by consent.
The court found the complainant's evidence credible regarding the sexual assault and rejected the accused's defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, finding he failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and relied on mistakes of law.
The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and assault, but acquitted of uttering threats.
Investigative detention from detailed 911 call upheld; marijuana and cash evidence admissible.
The accused brought Charter applications seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence arising from police stops and searches following a 911 report of a domestic dispute and suspected drug trafficking.
Police stopped a vehicle containing approximately 32.5 pounds of marijuana and later stopped a second vehicle carrying cash.
The defence alleged breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter, including arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, loss of a 911 recording, degradation of evidence, and improper commingling of seized drugs.
The court held that the initial stop constituted a lawful investigative detention based on a detailed 911 call from an identified caller and that the officer’s observations and smell of marijuana provided reasonable grounds to arrest and search.
The loss of the 911 recording and evidence-handling issues did not prejudice the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.
The Charter applications were dismissed and the seized evidence ruled admissible.
