Canada Case Law

R. v. Hu

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The complainant's evidence was found credible and established lack of consent; she submitted to oral sex out of fear of force contrary to s.265(3)(b), vitiating consent and satisfying the actus reus of sexual assault. The accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and his testimony did not raise an air of reality for honest but mistaken belief; therefore conviction on Count 1 is required. The Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally confined the complainant, so acquittal on Count 2 follows.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Consent
• Honest but mistaken belief
• Forcible confinement
• Credibility assessment
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. Singh

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from eight criminal convictions, holding the trial judge properly assessed credibility, religious motive evidence, demeanour, and evidentiary gaps.

• Credibility assessment
• Religious belief evidence
• Motive to fabricate
• Demeanour
• Burden of proof
• Investigative omissions

Read case analysis

R. v. Saboon

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Saboon’s appeal, allowed Morrison’s appeal, substituted manslaughter for murder, and imposed a 14-month sentence.

• Murder
• Manslaughter
• Party liability
• Common unlawful purpose (s.21(2))
• Subjective mens rea
• Defence of third party (s.34)

Read case analysis

R. v. Young

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal fails because the trial judge appropriately considered the absence of scientific evidence, reasonably resolved inconsistencies and motive theories, drew permissible common-sense inferences, and his credibility findings are entitled to appellate deference; no error in principle was shown on sentence and it is not unfit.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Forcible confinement
• Credibility findings
• Appellate deference
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. LeBlanc

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Given the serious privilege and confidential informant issues and the potential that the innocence at stake test may be engaged, and because the Crown agrees that other grounds of appeal should be determined first, the court converted the matter to a solicitor appeal, granted a s.684(1) order and appointed counsel (Mr. Lacy) for the limited purpose of pursuing the motion for directions; the Associate Chief Justice will case manage the matter and the motion will proceed only if other grounds fail.

Source excerpt

• Production under s.683(1)(a) criminal code
• Appointment of counsel under s.684(1) criminal code
• Innocence at stake test
• Confidential informant privilege
• Solicitor appeal
• Case management

Read case analysis

R. v. Beak

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the trial judge did not err: the jury instructions adequately explained that constructive first degree murder under s.231(5) requires the accused to have actively participated (i.e., been a substantial cause) in the killing; forcible confinement and sexual assault were properly left to the jury on the evidence; post-offence conduct testified to by Beak was admissible and properly cautioned as circumstantial; the judge correctly exercised discretion by declining a premature pre-ruling on jailhouse informant evidence; and the judge's specific corrective instruction cured any prej…

Source excerpt

• Constructive first degree murder s.231(5)
• Causation/substantial cause
• Forcible confinement
• Sexual assault as underlying offence
• Party liability
• Post-offence conduct

Read case analysis

R. v. Arora

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The sentencing judge did not err: the use of imitation firearms and the victims' trauma related to distinct phases and victims and could properly be considered in relation to both the forcible confinement and extortion convictions; the judge was aware of and considered the guilty plea and allocution and reasonably declined to afford them significant weight given the record; there was no evidence of a gambling addiction to mitigate sentence; therefore the consecutive aggregate sentence was fit.

Source excerpt

• Forcible confinement
• Extortion
• Consecutive sentences
• Double counting of aggravating factors
• Mitigating factors
• Guilty plea

Read case analysis

R. v. S.J.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge reasonably preferred the daughter's contemporaneous police statement over her viva voce recantation in light of corroborating evidence, the s.11(b) delay was lawfully reduced by periods attributable to the defence or exceptional circumstances so there was no Charter breach, the proposed fresh evidence was inadmissible or would not have altered the result, the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, and the information should be amended under s.683(1)(g) to remove wording inconsistent with the conviction.

Source excerpt

• Forcible confinement
• Failure to provide necessaries
• Assault causing bodily harm
• Assault with a weapon
• Hearsay and principled exception
• Recantation and credibility assessment

Read case analysis

R. v. Hernandez Barrios

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence in a manner that caused a miscarriage of justice; the judge reasonably relied on the appellant's inconsistent testimony that he was standing in the doorway and would not permit the complainant to leave, and the stringent Lohrer/Sinclair standard for appellate intervention was not met.

Source excerpt

• Forcible confinement
• Assault
• Criminal harassment
• Appellate review
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

R. v. J.F.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge did not err: he did not reverse the onus by attributing memory gaps to trauma, appropriately considered demeanour and lack of embellishment as contextual credibility factors alongside independent confirmatory evidence (photographs of injuries and discovery of gun and ammunition), and provided adequate reasons linking the evidence to the convictions; the unsafe storage convictions were properly supported by a marked departure from the standard of care.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Sexual assault
• Forcible confinement
• Careless storage of firearms
• Credibility assessment
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis