Aaron Wine

The court sentenced Idriss Buni for aggravated assault against his intimate partner, Muna Riyaleh, following a knife attack.

The court found the appropriate sentence to be 7.5 years’ imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions.

The decision discusses the applicable sentencing range for aggravated assault in the context of intimate partner violence, the impact of recent legislative amendments, and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

The accused, Idriss Buni, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against Muna Riyaleh.

The central issue was whether Ms. Riyaleh was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack by Mr. Buni or whether she attacked him and was injured during a struggle.

The court found Ms. Riyaleh to be a credible witness and rejected Mr. Buni’s account as contrived and inconsistent with the evidence.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Buni’s guilt and found him guilty as charged.

Martha Leibowitz was charged with breaching an undertaking condition that prohibited her from having contact with her condominium's property manager except through email.

The incident occurred on November 3, 2023, when she entered the property manager's office.

The Crown presented video evidence and the property manager's testimony.

Despite the defendant's submission that there was no sound recording and that she had to attend in person due to unanswered emails, the court found the Crown proved the breach beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilt.

The accused were charged with firearms offences after a gun was seized during a traffic stop.

They brought Charter applications to exclude the gun evidence under s. 24(2), alleging violations of their s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) rights.

The court found that while the initial traffic stop was lawful, the police unlawfully detained the passenger, requested his identification without justification, and conducted an unlawful search of the vehicle based on a hunch, not reasonable grounds for a CDSA arrest.

Consequently, the court excluded the gun evidence against both accused, leading to their acquittal.

The accused was charged with Public Mischief for falsely accusing the complainant of assault following a night of drinking and intimacy.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant, his mother, and a police officer.

The court found that the accused's allegations were intentionally false based on video surveillance evidence that contradicted her account, the complainant's credible testimony, and the accused's inconsistent statements to police.

The court found the accused guilty of Public Mischief.

The Crown applied without notice to adjourn a trial scheduled for the date of the hearing.

The accused was charged with Assault, Forcible Confinement, Failing to Comply with a Recognizance, and Mischief arising from an alleged altercation with his wife.

The Crown's primary reason for the adjournment was the lack of an available courtroom.

The complainant did not attend on the first day and was unable to remain on the second day due to childcare constraints.

The defence opposed the adjournment, citing restrictive bail conditions on the accused.

The court granted the adjournment, noting the systemic overbooking of trials in the jurisdiction and the practical impossibility of proceeding.

The court agreed to narrow the trial to one day instead of two and encouraged the Crown to consider amending restrictive bail conditions on consent.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a suitable sample of breath into an approved screening device on December 12, 2010.

The Crown's case relied on two police officers with significantly divergent observations regarding the accused's sobriety and the sobriety of a female passenger.

The trial judge found material inconsistencies between the officers' evidence, particularly regarding whether alcohol was detected on the accused's breath and whether the female passenger was impaired.

These inconsistencies created reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the investigation.

The accused was acquitted.