Purchase This Domain

Criminal infractions — Sexual assault — Sentencing — Youthful first-time offender — Appellant convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to five years in penitentiary — Did the trial judge err in imposing a five-year sentence by failing to adequately consider the principles of restraint and rehabilitation? — Governing principles for sentencing youthful first-time offenders, including proportionality, restraint, and rehabilitation — Sentence reduced to three yearsCriminal procedure — Mistaken belief in consent — Defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent — Appellant claimed belief in consent based on non-verbal conduct — Did the trial judge err in rejecting the defence? — Reasonable steps to ascertain consent required under s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code — Defence rejected as lacking an air of realityEvidence — Credibility and reliability — Complainant’s testimony — Appellant’s testimony — Did the trial judge err in assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the appellant? — Trial judge found complainant’s testimony forthright and consistent with evidence — Appellant’s testimony rejected due to contradictions and inconsistencies — Governing principles for assessing credibility and procedural fairness

Health — Mental health law — Community treatment orders — Incapacity to consent to treatment — Whether the Board and Superior Court erred in upholding a community treatment order under s. 15(1.1) of the Mental Health Act — Whether the treatment showing clinical improvement must occur during a prior hospitalization — Correctness standard of review applied — Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, s. 15(1.1)Social welfare — Mootness — Incapacity to consent to treatment — Whether the appeal from the finding of incapacity is moot — Capacity to consent to treatment is time and treatment specific — Presumption of capacity under the Health Care Consent Act — Court declined to hear the appeal on incapacity as it raised no broader issues — Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sched. ASocial welfare — Mootness — Community treatment orders — Whether the appeal from the community treatment order is moot — Community treatment orders valid for six months — Court exercised discretion to hear the appeal due to broader statutory interpretation issues — Importance of resolving inconsistent Board jurisprudence — Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, s. 33.1Statutory interpretation — Mental Health Act — Community treatment orders — Interpretation of s. 15(1.1) — Whether “clinical improvement” must occur during a prior hospitalization — Plain language of s. 15(1.1) requires prior successful treatment — Purpose of community treatment orders to address “revolving door” problem — Correctness standard applied — Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, s. 15(1.1)

Criminal procedure — Appeals — Sufficiency of reasons — Credibility findings — Defence theory of fabrication — Appellant convicted of sexual assault and choking to render the complainant incapable of resistance — Did the trial judge provide sufficient reasons for the convictions, particularly in addressing credibility findings and the defence theory of fabrication? — Reasons, when read contextually, adequately explained the basis for the convictionsEvidence — Credibility — Application of R. v. W.(D). — Credibility contest — Trial judge rejected defence witness’s evidence as inconsistent and unreliable — Complainant’s evidence accepted as consistent and credible — Did the trial judge err in applying the principles from R. v. W.(D)., including improperly staging a credibility contest? — Trial judge properly applied W.(D). and made distinct credibility findings