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
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a conviction appeal in a sexual interference case, finding the jury was properly instructed on reasonable doubt and no further limiting instruction was required.
Appeal allowed and a new trial ordered after the Court found the trial judge misapplied W.(D.) and used disbelief of the accused as a makeweight for guilt.
Ontario Court of Appeal upheld convictions for sexual offences and dismissed most sentence concerns, reducing the global sentence by four months on two counts.
Trial judgment on sexual offences involving four complainants. The court convicted on five counts, acquitted on two, and relied in part on similar fact evidence and credibility findings.
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge legitimately used the admitted audio recording for credibility impeachment rather than impermissible propensity reasoning, properly considered and rejected both intentional and unconscious collusion based on the evidence, and made credibility findings to which the appellate court must defer.
Source excerpt
The trial judge correctly applied the governing principles for admission of similar fact evidence, reasonably found no deliberate or unconscious collusion that tainted the complainants' evidence, properly addressed material inconsistencies, and his credibility findings were open to him; therefore there was no reversible error and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court ruled on similar fact evidence in a judge-alone sexual offence case, admitting some prior and count-to-count evidence while excluding other allegations.
The court dismissed the Crown’s similar fact application, finding a real risk of collusion or tainting and ruling the evidence too prejudicial to admit.
The court found Mr. Long misled the trial court about John Darch’s involvement, but held the non-disclosure was not material enough to set aside the earlier judgment.
The court partly allowed the Crown’s similar fact application, admitting KT’s three allegations together on counts 6 to 8, but refusing broader cross-count use.
Explore more
