Canada Case Law

R. v. Obatusa

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the totality of interlocking circumstantial evidence — DNA from the accused on restraint items central to the crime, phone metadata and images showing detailed reconnaissance and contemporaneous photographs of the victim, surveillance consistent with the accused's appearance and gait, and reliable eyewitness accounts — the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused planned, directed and participated in the home invasion and kidnapping; hypothetical prior‑touch explanations were speculative and unreasonable in context.

Source excerpt

• Breaking and entering
• Kidnapping
• Parties to an offence (aiding and abetting)
• Circumstantial evidence
• Identification evidence
• Dna evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. K.J.K.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The presumption in s.348(2) was rebutted by accepted evidence that the accused had a non‑indictable purpose (to see C.D. and obtain a phone), but the Crown nevertheless proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of entry the accused intended to interfere with C.D.'s lawful use or enjoyment of the dwelling (mischief) and that he committed an assault by making a threatening gesture with a screwdriver while within present ability to apply force; accordingly the accused was convicted on both counts.

Source excerpt

• Breaking and entering
• Assault
• Mischief
• Possession of break‑in instruments
• Credibility assessment
• Section 348(2) presumption

Read case analysis

R. v. Hayes

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Sentencing after conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling and careless firearm storage; the court imposed 22 months’ custody, consecutive terms, and ancillary firearms orders.

• Breaking and entering
• Uttering threats
• Careless storage of firearms
• Weapons prohibition
• Forfeiture
• Victim surcharge waiver

Read case analysis

R. v. Brophy

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On sentencing for multiple property offences, the court imposed a global 28-month custodial sentence, credited pre-sentence custody at 1.5:1, and added 24 months of probation.

• Breaking and entering
• Theft
• Possession of stolen property
• Possession of instruments for breaking
• Conditional sentence order
• Pre-sentence custody credit

Read case analysis

R. v. Chapman

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Mr. Chapman guilty of break and enter. It held his evidence did not rebut the presumption of intent and rejected necessity.

• Breaking and entering
• Mischief
• Theft
• Presumption of intent (s.348(2)(a))
• Defence of necessity
• Mens rea

Read case analysis

R v. Walkus

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court sentenced Ronald Walkus to six years concurrent for breaking and entering and sexual assault, with Gladue factors considered but limited mitigation accepted.

• Sexual assault
• Breaking and entering
• Sentencing principles
• Gladue factors
• Pre-sentence custody credit
• Ancillary orders

Read case analysis

R. v. Soranno

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing analysis but varied the sentence, replacing 30-day intermittent jail terms with 120-day conditional sentence orders plus probation.

• Mischief
• Breaking and entering
• Allocution
• Aggravating factors
• Conditional sentence
• General and specific deterrence

Read case analysis

R. v. Fischer

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge correctly applied the W.(D.) framework, reasonably preferred and corroborated the complainant's evidence, and the existence of post‑separation contact or an isolated text did not undermine the essential elements of the offences or negate the complainant's fear; therefore there was no reasonable doubt and the convictions stand.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Breaking and entering
• Criminal harassment
• Credibility assessment
• Victim behaviour
• Appeal from conviction

Read case analysis

R. v. Griffin

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Given the complainant's prolonged contact and observation of the accused, the trial judge was not required to give a special identification warning; the record does not demonstrate that the judge applied an uneven standard of scrutiny to the parties' evidence or made palpable and overriding errors, and therefore the convictions are to be upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Robbery
• Breaking and entering
• Suffocation
• Identification evidence
• Eyewitness identification
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

R. v. Visscher

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court found no legal error in the trial judge's credibility assessment and therefore declined to interfere with the verdicts; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Breaking and entering
• Credibility assessment
• Sentence
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis