Aleem Baksh

The appellant appealed her speeding conviction from May 29, 2014, on grounds of unreasonable delay affecting her right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The original conviction was registered on January 31, 2011, followed by an appeal and new trial.

The appellant argued that delays in obtaining trial transcripts and the timing of the appeal process constituted unreasonable delay.

The court found that the delay issue had been previously addressed in the first appeal before Justice Mocha, and that the facts regarding the delay were not clearly established.

The court also rejected allegations of misdirection, bias, and misapplication of stare decisis.

The appeal was dismissed.

Sentencing decision for invitation to sexual touching contrary to s. 152 of the Criminal Code.

The offender, a 22-year-old skate guard, engaged in sexually explicit communications with a 13-year-old girl and sent her an explicit image.

The defence challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum 14-day sentence under s. 152, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The court rejected the Charter challenge and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 14 days incarceration, followed by 12 months probation with conditions including no contact, distance restrictions, and counselling requirements.

A DNA order and 10-year SOIRA order were also imposed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The charges arose from a motor vehicle collision on Steeles Avenue and Airport Road in Brampton on September 19, 2010.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification by the victim of the collision, observations of the accused's condition by police officers, and breath analysis results.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) regarding the timing of the right to counsel but excluded only statements made during the breach period.

The breath analysis evidence was admitted.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.