Zachary Grant Scott Huywan

The accused, J.F.R.G., was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving a complainant under 16.

The court found significant material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony across police statements, preliminary inquiry, and trial, coupled with a confrontational demeanor during cross-examination.

The accused, who testified, was found to be candid and compelling in his denial of the allegations.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on both counts.

The accused, R.C., faced a 6-count indictment for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, luring, sexual assault, making child pornography, and possession of child pornography.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, police officers, the accused, and his wife.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's and his wife's testimony as unreliable and dishonest.

The accused was found guilty of sexual interference, sexual assault, making child pornography, and possession of child pornography, but acquitted on invitation to sexual touching and luring due to insufficient detail or timing regarding the specific incidents and communications.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, sought a ruling on whether various records in their possession met the definition of "record" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, thereby subjecting them to the record screening regime.

The court analyzed different categories of records, including family photos, video footage, emails, social media messages, and family law documents.

The court found that most records did not meet the definition, as they lacked intimate personal information or a reasonable expectation of privacy.

However, two family law documents (Form 13 Financial Statement and Form 17C Settlement Conference Brief) were deemed subject to the regime due to their confidential nature and protected status under the Family Law Rules.

The accused brought a Section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for delay in trial.

The charges included sexual assault, sexual interference, and forcible confinement arising from an alleged incident on July 9, 2016.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, calculating the net delay and considering whether exceptional circumstances existed.

The court found that while the net delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months, a discrete event (court cancellation due to weather in a fly-in community) constituted exceptional circumstances.

After deducting this period, the remaining delay fell below the ceiling.

The court further found that the accused failed to demonstrate that the case took markedly longer than reasonably necessary given local considerations of fly-in court operations.

The application for a stay was dismissed.