Recent Decisions from CanLII

• Dr. Janet Haynes v The Government of Nunavut, 2026 NUCJ 21 (CanLII)

  August 24, 2026

  Procedure — Interlocutory motions — Jurisdiction — Motions judge inability to make determinations binding a trial judge — Whether acceptance “into evidence” of the 2016 Collective Agreement as governing agreement can be ordered — Final decision reserved to trial judge after viva voce evidence — Ashak v Ontario (Family Responsibility Office) cited — Relief declined for lack of jurisdictionLabour and employment — Collective agreements — Governing agreement dispute — Whether 2010 Collective Agreement or 2016 Collective Agreement governs during probationary employment — Conflicting positions on terms continuing during negotiations and “date of signing” coming into effect — Determination characterised as final and potentially determinative — Issue left for trial judge — No declaration madeProcedure — Documentary disclosure — Rule 219 — Whether defendant must disclose and certify completeness of the 2016 Collective Agreement available on a Government website — Defendant ordered to review link and advise if complete or provide missing documents — Specific search ordered for “meeting notes” on “Hire with Caution list” decision — Production obligations enforced — Orders grantedProcedure — Production format and redactions — Discovery — Whether redacted Excel worksheets improperly alter evidence and conceal where redactions occurred — Requirement that recipient be able to tell where redactions have taken place — R v Unnamed Person cited — Defendant ordered to convert all “Do Not Hire” and “Hire with Caution” lists in Excel format to PDF and apply relevant redactions — Order grantedProfessional responsibility — Litigation conduct — Bad faith — Whether evidential record shows “intentional duplicity, obstruction or obfuscation” by defendant or counsel warranting court sanction — High test for bad faith applied, distinction from unreasonable behaviour noted — No bad faith or unreasonable behaviour found on motion record — Sanctions refused, while costs for unprepared corporate representative awarded

• R. v Kownirk, 2026 NUCJ 20 (CanLII)

  August 20, 2026

  Statutory interpretation — Criminal Code, s. 85(1)(a) — Distinct conviction requirement — Whether a standalone plea to using a firearm during an indictable offence can be accepted without a distinct conviction for mischief under s. 430(1)(c) — Pringle, Andrade applied — New Indictment adding mischief filed — Further s. 606 inquiry conducted — Guilty pleas acceptedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Proportionality and totality — Fit sentence for uttering threats, mischief, using a firearm during an indictable offence, and breach of probation — Primacy of denunciation and deterrence under ss. 718, 718.1 — Consecutive and concurrent terms ordered — Presentence custody credit calculated — Global term fixed — Custodial sentence imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Effect of racial language in threats and extensive criminal record — Early guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitation efforts considered — Indigenous offender analysis under s. 718.2(e) — Degree of responsibility and gravity assessed — Moral culpability for firearm use characterized — Sentence adjusted accordingly — Sentence varied from Crown and Defence positionsCriminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Probation and prohibitions — Whether further probation appropriate given existing order — Life weapons prohibition under s. 109 with s. 113 exemption — Forfeiture of Osman phantom gun and knives under s. 491 — Victim surcharge waived — Statutory terms and abstention conditions imposed — Ancillary orders issued

• DCFS v K.L., 2026 NUCJ 16 (CanLII)

  August 7, 2026

  Child protection — Interim custody — Supervision order — Child placed in interim custody pending adjourned temporary custody motion — Best interest and safety considerations in urgent circumstances — Ongoing medical care in Ottawa, intoxication and threats, child’s stated wish to stay with foster parent — Interim placement maintained — Application dismissedProcedure — Jurisdiction — Same court review — Whether the judge has power to determine alleged loss of jurisdiction without sitting as an appellate judge — Prior orders made without the loss of jurisdiction issue being argued or considered — Review limited to determining loss of jurisdiction, not merits of prior orders — Application dismissedStatutory interpretation — Child and Family Services Act — Apprehension confirmation — Whether interim custody by a judge constitutes an “apprehension” engaging CFSA, ss. 24(1), 26(1), 26(3) — Plain reading of CFSA, ss. 10 and 11 limits apprehensions to child protection worker, peace officer, authorized person — Confirmation process not engaged — Application dismissedProcedure — Voidness — Want of jurisdiction — Whether alleged failure to comply with CFSA apprehension confirmation provisions voids subsequent temporary custody and adjournment orders ab initio — Director found not to have been required to file a declaration that the child is in need of protection after interim custody order — Jurisdiction not lost by Director or court — Application dismissed

• Alison Crowe v Legal Services Board of Nunavut, 2026 NUCJ 15 (CanLII)

  August 6, 2026

  Administrative law — Judicial review — Public decision making — Whether refusal to reinstate the Applicant to the criminal panel is amenable to judicial review — Wall and Khorsand applied to characterise decision — Air Canada factors considered, statutory mandate and public funding emphasised — Tarnow distinguished, panel appointments not akin to staff assignments — Decision subject to judicial reviewAdministrative law — Procedural fairness — Duty owed — Did the Legal Services Board owe the Applicant procedural fairness on reinstatement? — Public decision affecting rights, privileges and interests under Baker — Importance to livelihood and access to legal aid services in Nunavut weighed — Duty of procedural fairness owedAdministrative law — Procedural fairness — Content and breach — What level of fairness applied and was it breached? — Mid-range protections required, notice of concerns and chance to respond — Legitimate expectations and Nunavut context considered — Failure to disclose concerns before refusal — Breach of procedural fairness foundAdministrative law — Remedies — Judicial review relief — Appropriate remedy for breach of fairness — No order for reinstatement or damages absent bad faith — Matter remitted to Board to reconsider with Applicant’s responding materials considered — Costs to successful Applicant — Matter remitted for reconsideration

• R. v Issigaitok, 2026 NUCJ 19 (CanLII)

  August 4, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Sexual offences against children — Sexual interference, Criminal Code, s. 151 — Two guilty pleas and victim impact statement considered — Prior sexual offending history and breach of s. 161 condition treated as aggravating — Separation from society to protect children emphasised — Global penitentiary sentence imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing principles — Aggravating and mitigating factors — What is a fit global sentence for two convictions under Criminal Code, s. 151? — Mandatory minimum one year noted — Dangerous offender designation and ongoing risk assessed — Advanced age, health, remorse, and guilty pleas weighed — Crown and defence positions compared — Global sentence set at 4 and a half yearsIndigenous peoples — Gladue sentencing — Aboriginal offender circumstances — Criminal Code, s. 718.2(e) — Application of R. v. Gladue and R. v. Ipeelee on sentencing — Residential school attendance and reported sexual abuse treated as systemic or background factors — Whether those circumstances warrant a shorter sentence assessed — Mitigation recognised but denunciation and protection prioritised — Custodial sentence imposedEvidence — Sentencing hearing — Read-in facts — Stayed charge read in at sentencing hearing and admitted — Whether the second incident could serve as an aggravating factor — Read-in facts used to inform aggravation for the offence pleaded to — Video evidence of community hall incident considered — Aggravating factor accepted on sentenceProcedure — Sentencing orders — Credit and ancillary orders — Enhanced credit for 434 days in custody applied — Whether sentences should be consecutive and how to break down the global sentence — Mandatory lifetime orders under Criminal Code, ss. 110 and 161, Sex Offender Registry orders, and DNA order imposed — Victim fine surcharge waived — Sentence credit granted and orders made

• R. v Toonoo, 2026 NUCJ 14 (CanLII)

  June 11, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Manslaughter — Judge-alone trial — Whether the Crown proved manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt — Presumption of innocence and onus per Lifchus — Findings limited to proof of a brutally violent assault and subsequent death — Identity of assailant not established — Reasonable doubt persists — Not guilty of manslaughterEvidence — Circumstantial evidence — Villaroman standard — Whether circumstantial evidence excludes other reasonable alternatives — Consideration of other plausible theories based on logic and experience — Alternative perpetrator reasonably possible — Crown’s case did not meet proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Not guilty of manslaughterEvidence — Credibility and reliability — Intoxicated witnesses, inconsistent accounts — Whether uncorroborated account of S.T. should be given weight — Neighbour testimony accepted as reliable and preferred — Direct evidence of assault given little weight — Inconsistencies raise reasonable doubt — Not guilty of manslaughterCriminal and statutory offences — Manslaughter — Elements — Unlawful act, dangerousness and causation — Whether the accused committed the unlawful act causing death — Essential elements not all proved against the accused — Other reasonable possibilities not excluded — Crown failed to discharge onus — Not guilty of manslaughter

• R. v Kanayok, 2026 NUCJ 13 (CanLII)

  June 3, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sexual interference — Elements and proof — Whether the Crown proved touching for a sexual purpose beyond a reasonable doubt — Complainant under 16 established — Intentional touching outside clothing found — Application of W.(D.), J.H.S., Kruk — Proof beyond a reasonable doubt explained — Guilty of one count under s. 151(b) — Conviction enteredProcedure — Postponement — Adjournment of trial — Should the accused’s request for a postponement be granted — Repeated adjournments over years reviewed — Hearing impairment accommodated with court equipment — Jordan cited on unreasonable delay and public confidence — Further postponement found unreasonable — Trial proceeded — Postponement deniedEvidence — Assessment of credibility — Delayed disclosure and inconsistencies — How delayed disclosure and minor inconsistencies affect credibility of a complainant — Criminal Code, s. 275, and D.D., W.(R.), C.P., Takawgak applied — Core allegation consistent and reliable — No reasonable doubt arising — Complainant’s testimony acceptedProcedure — Amicus curiae — Fair trial — Whether appointing amicus curiae was warranted to ensure a fair trial for a self‑represented accused — Mandate to advise on procedure, challenge Crown’s case, cross‑examine, and make submissions — Assistance ensured fairness without acting as counsel — Trial proceeded with amicus — Appointment confirmed

• R. v A.A., 2026 NUCJ 10 (CanLII)

  April 30, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sexual assault — Elements of offence (s. 271) — Whether the Crown proved touching of a child for a sexual purpose — Consent unavailable under s. 150.1 — Evidence of hand under pull‑up diaper, back‑and‑forth caressing — W(D.) applied, accused’s account rejected — Touching for a sexual purpose established beyond a reasonable doubt — Conviction enteredCriminal and statutory offences — Sexual interference — Particularized manner of touching (s. 151) — Crown bound by particulars, Saunders applied — Circumstantial evidence assessed under Villaroman and Griffin — Erection noted but reasonable non‑guilty inference remained — Attempt under s. 24 not proved — Acquittal enteredEvidence — Credibility — Prior inconsistent statements and interpretation — Whether mother’s credibility and reliability supported findings — W(D.) framework and assessment in totality — Language limitations and lack of interpreter considered — Demonstrative aids clarified hand motions — Angle of sight and corroborative admissions by accused evaluated — Mother accepted as credible and reliable, accused not — Findings of credibility affirmed

• R. v Arreak, 2026 NUCJ 8 (CanLII)

  April 29, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Joint submission on sentence — Anthony-Cook public interest test — Whether proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute — Guidance from R. v. Anthony-Cook and R. v. Nakashook applied — Reasonable and informed public confidence assessed — Joint submission “markedly out of line” with circumstances — Joint submission rejectedEvidence — Victim impact statements — Criminal Code, s. 722 — How should the victim impact statement be considered in assessing a joint submission? — Actual harm and fear described by victim — Context for gravity and proportionality, not improper aggravation — Principles from R. v. Benjumea and R. v. Theriault endorsed — Statement considered as aggravating context — Use circumscribed, consideredCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Proportionality and objectives under s. 718 — What sentence is fit for intimate partner assault and repeated breaches? — Denunciation, deterrence, separation from society prioritized under ss. 718, 718.04, 718.2(a)(ii) — Repeated failures to comply weighed — Totality addressed — Global custodial term increased — Two-year sentence plus probation imposedIndigenous peoples — Sentencing — Gladue considerations — How do s. 718.2(e) and Gladue apply where the offender is Indigenous and the victim is an Indigenous intimate partner? — Systemic and background factors recognized — Tension with denunciation and deterrence for violence against Indigenous women noted, Cope referenced — Alternatives considered yet found insufficient — Fit sentence emphasising separation and denunciation imposed

• R. v Q.N., 2026 NUCJ 7 (CanLII)

  April 9, 2026

  Indigenous peoples — Sentencing — Application of s. 718.2(e) to Indigenous offender — Whether pregnancy and Indigenous status mitigate custodial term — Denunciation and deterrence given primacy under s. 718.04 — Parity principle and individualised sentencing considered in Nunavut — Serious sexual assault and harm acknowledged — Fit sentence balancing health considerations and denunciation — Six months’ custody imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional sentence orders — Whether a CSO is fit for s. 271 sexual assault — Forced penetrative assault requires sufficiently denunciatory sanction — Gardiner findings and party liability referenced — Crown proceeded summarily, maximum 18 months noted — House arrest and curfew insufficient to reflect gravity and deterrence — Conditional sentence refusedCriminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — SOIRA — Whether SOIRA presumption rebutted under s. 490.012(4) — Defence factors considered and presumption displaced — Mandatory order under s. 490.013(1) not applicable — DNA order under s. 487.051 issued and no‑contact under s. 743.2(1) — Victim fine surcharge waived for hardship — SOIRA order not imposed

• R. v McCarthy, 2026 NUCJ 6 (CanLII)

  April 9, 2026

  Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 10(b) — Mandatory alcohol screening — Interplay between Criminal Code s. 320.27(2) and immediacy of counsel — Does the immediacy requirement apply during a brief roadside ASD demand? — Suberu applied, Thomsen and Blysniuk discussed — Informational component delivered 31 seconds post‑arrest — Lawful traffic stop under Traffic Safety Act — No s. 10(b) breach — Application dismissedRights and freedoms — Charter s. 10(b) — Implementational duty — Immediacy of the call to counsel — Whether delay to facilitate access to legal advice was unreasonable — Practical impediments and privacy at roadside considered — Radwanski and Taylor principles applied — Childcare arrangements and transport to detachment — Private phone access at first reasonable opportunity — No breach foundEvidence — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — Whether breath evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) as obtained in violation of s. 10(b) — Informational and implementational duties satisfied — Realistic opportunity to consult with counsel provided — No further investigative steps taken before access — ASD and breath samples admissible — Exclusion refusedCriminal and statutory offences — Impaired driving — Proof — Whether evidence establishes offences under s. 320.14(1)(a) and s. 320.14(1)(b) — ASD fail, odour of liquor, erratic driving, failure to stop, high breath readings — Breath samples of 180 mg and 190 mg within two hours — Kienapple precludes multiple convictions — Over 80 conviction entered, impaired conviction stayed

• R. v Crockatt, 2026 NUCJ 5 (CanLII)

  March 19, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Assault causing bodily harm (s. 267(b)) — What is a fit sentence given serious injuries and mitigating factors — Proportionality under s. 718 applied to gravity and responsibility — Nunavut range of three to six months considered — Self‑defence rejected — Higher range warranted due to fractures and pneumothorax — Six‑month sentence imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Consecutive sentences — Totality principle — Should the sentence be consecutive to an unrelated existing sentence — s. 718 and s. 718.2(c) considered — Distinct event and different victim require consecutivity — R. v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA 339, applied on tempered effect and overall harshness — Rehabilitation prospects weighed against denunciation and deterrence — Consecutive to existing sentenceCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing principles — Rehabilitation and Indigenous status — How should rehabilitation and the offender’s Indigenous background inform sentence — Remorse, dated record, community support and counselling efforts recognised — Avoiding unduly long or harsh sentence to not discourage rehabilitation — Alcohol condition avoided to prevent setting up for failure — Alcohol prohibition declinedCriminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Probation and related orders — Are the probation conditions and ancillary orders appropriate — Probation for eighteen months with counselling and no contact — DNA order under s. 487.051(1) and weapons prohibition under s. 109 with s. 113 recommendation — Non‑communication while in custody under s. 743.21(1) — Surcharge waived for hardship — Probation and ancillary orders imposed

• R. v Tunnillie, 2026 NUCJ 4 (CanLII)

  March 4, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Assault with a weapon, Assault causing bodily harm — Essential elements — Were ss. 267(a) and 267(b) proven beyond a reasonable doubt? — Medical and photographic evidence of cuts, burns, bruising, swollen eyes — Knife used during unlawful confinement under s. 279(2) — Elements of bodily harm exceeding trifling or transient established — Convictions on both counts initially enteredCriminal and statutory offences — Parties to offences — Criminal Code, s. 21(1) — Did the accused aid or abet assaults during confinement? — Legal indifference between principal and party confirmed per R. v. Thatcher — Active assistance by preventing escape and shaving eyebrow — Knowledge of LP’s assaults and intent to assist inferred — Party liability establishedEvidence — Credibility — R. v. W.(D.) — Did W.(D.) govern the outcome where both accused and complainant testified? — Differences about who committed specific acts immaterial given party liability — Guilty plea to unlawful confinement and admissions narrowed credibility issues — W.(D.) framework acknowledged but not determinative — Convictions supported without W.(D.) acquittal analysisProcedure — Multiple convictions — R. v. Kienapple — Should one of the assault convictions be stayed as arising from the same transaction? — Double conviction risk identified for s. 267(a) and s. 267(b) from same series of assaults — Court stayed the s. 267(a) count on Kienapple grounds — One conviction stayed

• R. v T.I., 2026 NUCJ 3 (CanLII)

  February 26, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Pleas — Lesser included offence — Whether second incident met “bodily harm” under s. 267(b) — Injuries described as trifling and transient — Facts failed to disclose interference with comfort beyond transient — Plea to s. 267(b) rejected — Guilty plea to lesser included assault under s. 266 accepted — Charge reduced and plea enteredCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Intimate partner violence — Application of ss. 718, 718.04 and 718.2(e) — How to balance denunciation and deterrence with Gladue factors — Prior convictions against same victim aggravating — Dislocated nose found serious bodily harm, Inwood cited — Emphasis on separation, denunciation, deterrence affirmed — Custodial sentence imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional Sentence Order — Whether CSO available and appropriate under s. 742.1 and Proulx — Do prerequisites permit a community sentence for intimate partner violence with bodily harm — Need for deterrence warrants incarceration — CSO would not meet denunciation or promote responsibility — Conditional Sentence Order refusedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Consecutive sentences and totality — Should sentences on separate files run consecutively — Global sentence must not be unduly long or harsh, s. 718.2(c) — Consecutive terms imposed for s. 267(b) and s. 266 — Combined length not unduly long or harsh — No totality deduction ordered

• R. v. T.W., 2026 NUCJ 2 (CanLII)

  February 11, 2026

  Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Reasonable time, Jordan framework — Whether net delay exceeded the 18‑month ceiling — Discrete exceptional events for Garofoli hearing and unforeseen trial length — Defence delay for adjourned submissions — Authorities applied, Jordan, K.J.M., Cody — Net delay 14.4 months, within ceiling — Stay refusedRights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Verdict deliberation time — Whether deliberations were markedly longer than reasonably necessary under K.G.K. — Four‑day trial, transcripts and credibility assessment required — Northern circuit and weather constraints considered, no contrary evidence — Decision rendered within Canadian Judicial Council six‑month guideline — No breach foundRights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Post‑verdict delay — Whether post‑verdict period for Charter application breached s. 11(b) — Application brought after trial, scheduling at Defence’s first proposed date — Materials filed near deadlines, court and Crown unable to expedite — Charley discussed, fact‑centred approach in Nunavut context — Post‑verdict period treated as defence delay — No breach found

• R. v. Akpalialuk, 2026 NUCJ 1 (CanLII)

  February 11, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired operation — Elements of offence — Whether the Crown proved the accused operated an ATV while impaired — Operation inferred from proximity to ATV, warm engine, keys, and statement — Presumption of innocence and burden beyond a reasonable doubt — Competing inferences assessed — Guilt not the only reasonable inference — Acquittal enteredEvidence — Hearsay — Out-of-court statements to police — Are third-party reports of dangerous driving admissible for their truth? — Reports of erratic ATV driving and near collision — Not admissible for the truth of contents — Court refused to rely on hearsay to prove operation — Hearsay not admittedEvidence — Circumstantial evidence — Standard of proof — Does the totality establish guilt as the only reasonable inference? — Application of R. v. Villaroman and R. v. Griffin — Totality approach referenced in R. v. Medina — Rational inference that someone else drove the ATV — Reasonable doubt persists — Conviction not entered

• R. v Toonoo, 2025 NUCJ 37 (CanLII)

  December 3, 2025

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Attempted murder — Whether sentence should emphasise denunciation and deterrence given unprovoked, prolonged choking and discussion of hanging — Application of s. 718.04 to an Indigenous female victim as aggravating — Mental health history and apology as mitigating — Total sentence 8 years 2 months, credit applied, 2 years less a day remaining — Probation 3 years — Sentence imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Multiple convictions — Kienapple principle — Whether aggravated assault is subsumed within the elements of attempted murder — Same incident and factual nexus — Reliance on R. v. Keinapple, [1975] 1 SCR 729 — Avoiding multiple convictions for the same delict — Aggravated assault stayedProcedure — Sentencing — Pre-sentence custody credit — Application of enhanced credit at 1.5 to 1 for more than four years in custody — Choice between federal penitentiary term and territorial sentence to enable probation and community-based monitoring — Territorial term ordered to permit lengthy probation and treatment conditions — Territorial sentence with probation orderedIndigenous peoples — Sentencing — Gladue and s. 718.04 — How do Gladue factors mitigate and s. 718.04 aggravate the sentence? — Indigenous offender with significant trauma and mental illness considered — Indigenous female victim’s vulnerability recognised as aggravating — Denunciation and deterrence balanced with rehabilitation in Nunavut — Sentence reduced from contemplated 10 years to 8 years 2 months — Sentence varied downward based on Gladue considerations

• R. v A.B., 2025 NUCJ 36 (CanLII)

  December 3, 2025

  Evidence — Preliminary inquiry — Admissibility of recorded statement — Criminal Code, s. 540(7) — Whether the May 15 video statement is “credible or trustworthy” — Prima facie air of reliability threshold applied — Definitions of “credible” and “trustworthy” from Uttak adopted — Inconsistencies and demeanour going to weight, not admissibility — Residual discretion to exclude not engaged — Statement admittedProcedure — Preliminary inquiry — Cross-examination under s. 540(9) — Should cross-examination be permitted where committal evidence is sufficient? — Guidelines considered, including relevance, discovery utility, vulnerability, and sufficiency — Credibility testing not a proper purpose — Minor discrepancies not material — Disclosure concerns to be addressed by Stinchcombe application — Child complainant’s further examination unnecessary — Application to cross-examine denied

• R. v T.L. & Q.N., 2025 NUCJ 35 (CanLII)

  November 7, 2025

  Criminal infractions — Sexual assault — Consent — Mens rea — Accused charged under section 271 of the Criminal Code for sexual assault — Complainant testified to lack of consent and communicated "no" during the incident — Accused claimed belief in implied consent based on non-verbal cues — Whether the accused was reckless or willfully blind to the absence of consent — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 271 — Principles of consent and recklessness in sexual assault casesEvidence — Credibility of witnesses — Conflicting testimony — Complainant testified to lack of consent and physical resistance — Accused claimed no verbal refusal and interpreted actions as consent — Court found complainant credible and accused's testimony unworthy of belief — Application of R. v. W.D. framework to assess conflicting evidence — Burden of proof on the Crown to establish lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubtEvidence — Role of co-accused — Gardiner hearing — Co-accused, Q.N., admitted partial involvement in the sexual assault — Court found Q.N. actively facilitated the assault by pushing the complainant, removing clothing, and attempting oral sex — Assessment of co-accused's credibility and conflicting testimony — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 271Criminal procedure — Standard of proof — Presumption of innocence — Application of R. v. W.D. to conflicting narratives in sexual assault trials — Court required to acquit if reasonable doubt exists based on accused's evidence or overall case — Court satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of lack of consent and accused's knowledge of non-consent — Principles governing the burden of proof in criminal trials

• R. v Olooyuk, 2025 NUCJ 34 (CanLII)

  November 3, 2025

  Constitution — Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention — Unreasonable search — Right to counsel — Cumulative Charter breaches — Remedy under section 24(1) — Did the accused’s detention and arrest violate sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter? — Was a stay of proceedings the appropriate remedy? — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b), 24(1)Criminal procedure — Warrantless arrest — Reasonable grounds for detention — Subjective and objective grounds — Did the police have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for impaired operation of a snowmobile? — Framework for warrantless arrests under section 495(1)(b) of the Criminal Code — R. v. Storrey and R. v. Tim appliedRights and freedoms — Unreasonable search — Privacy in a private residence — Police observations through a window — Did the police conduct violate the accused’s reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the Charter? — Test for unreasonable search from R. v. Evans and R. v. Spencer appliedCriminal procedure — Right to counsel — Section 10(b) of the Charter — Police failure to facilitate access to legal counsel — Operational difficulties cited by police — Did the denial of access to counsel violate the accused’s constitutional rights? — Paramountcy of section 10(b) rights over operational challengesRights and freedoms — Section 7 of the Charter — Cumulative Charter breaches — Procedural fairness and systemic concerns — Did the cumulative effect of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) violations amount to a breach of section 7? — Remedy under section 24(1) — Stay of proceedings ordered to preserve the integrity of the justice system