Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Although the complainant was found to be forthright and credible on many points, the accuseds testimony created a reasonable doubt about whether the touching amounted to sexual assault; the Crown did not meet its burden beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused must be acquitted.
Source excerpt
The court found, on the whole of the admissible evidence (notably the text-message exchanges and bank records) and applying W.(D.) and the reasonable doubt standard, that Drake intentionally deceived Clark and obtained $8,950 by false pretenses; Drake's testimony was unreliable and the Crown proved dishonest deprivation beyond a reasonable doubt, constituting fraud.
Source excerpt
Trial judge accepted the complainant as credible and reliable, applied W(D) and relevant sexual‑offence jurisprudence, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that specific incidents (bra strap snapping incidents, pinching and blanket attempt, and the face/neck licking with sexual language) were sexual in context and violated the complainant’s sexual integrity, thereby proving sexual touching (s.151) and sexual assault (s.271); other incidents were found to be non‑sexual assaults or lacked sexual context.
Source excerpt
The Court found no reversible error: the jury charge, taken as a whole, adequately instructed on circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt; the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing a late mid‑trial s.8 voir dire because the application was untimely, procedurally deficient and had no reasonable prospect of success; challenged evidentiary matters (GHB reference, handwriting suggestion, hearsay) were either harmless or properly excluded/inoculated; sentencing was within the trial judge's discretion and mental health evidence did not establish a causal link reducing moral blamewort…
Source excerpt
The court refused a mistrial after finding some closing-submission misconduct could be cured by instructions and reply, so the jury remained empanelled.
The trial judge's credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference; the confrontation issue only gained significance after the defence evidence so MS's testimony was admissible in reply, did not unfairly split the Crown's case nor offend the collateral fact rule, and caused no prejudice; therefore the appeal is dismissed and convictions are upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld that a trial judge's thorough credibility analysis supported by recordings and contemporaneous notes will not be overturned absent palpable and overriding error; appellate rulings on questions of law are binding on trial courts; and sentencing may properly take into account the nature of the drug (including its potential use to facilitate sexual assault) and the large quantity seized, such that the conviction and five-year sentence were properly imposed.
Source excerpt
The trial judge correctly applied the O'Connor first‑stage 'likely relevancy' test and was entitled to dismiss the application because the material before him did not establish a reasonable possibility that the complainant's medical records would be logically probative to issues at trial (including credibility); there was no temporal nexus between psychiatric treatment and the complaint and the affidavits and transcript excerpts did not show delusions or memory defects sufficient to justify production. The defence's decision not to call Ms. D. was tactical, not the result of judicial exclusio…
Source excerpt
Explore more
