Ysolt Brar

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving his minor daughter.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the defence sought 3-4 years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, the victim's young age, the duration and frequency of the assaults, and the degree of physical interference.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea and the collateral consequences of serving time during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also noted the accused's own history of abuse, which explained his actions but did not serve as a mitigating factor for sentencing.

A sentence of 4 years and 6 months in penitentiary was imposed, along with a 15-year Section 161 prohibition order, a DNA order, and lifetime SOIRA registration.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and other offences, brought an application for directions on whether he must apply under s. 278.93 of the Criminal Code to adduce text messages and letters from the complainant at trial.

The court analyzed whether the communications constituted 'records' under s. 278.1 in which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court ruled that threatening messages and an email recanting the allegations did not require a hearing, while messages of a sexual nature and love letters did constitute records requiring a s. 278.93 hearing.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a complainant at a youth residence.

The trial focused on the issue of consent.

The complainant testified that she had consumed alcohol, lost consciousness, and woke to find the accused performing sexual acts on her.

The accused testified that the complainant had consented to the sexual activity through her words and actions.

The court found that the complainant's lack of memory was more consistent with a blackout state than complete unconsciousness, and that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the complainant was unconscious and unable to consent at the time of the alleged sexual activity.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown sought a review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the respondent on bail following serious charges including failing to comply with a recognizance, discharge of a firearm, uttering a threat to damage property, and break and enter of a residence.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace erred in law and principle by failing to adequately analyze the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, and by allowing the COVID-19 pandemic to disproportionately influence the decision without a robust supervision plan.

The court concluded that the proposed supervision plan was inadequate given the seriousness of the allegations and the respondent's criminal record.

The respondent's bail was vacated, and she was ordered detained.