Aman S. Patel

This decision addresses two issues in the context of a long-running guardianship and estate dispute: (1) the standing of Indu and Meenu Shewa to participate in the passing of accounts of Sundri Shewa’s property, and (2) the disclosure of medical information regarding Sundri Shewa’s capacity.

The court grants standing to Indu and Meenu, finding their rights and interests may be directly affected by the outcome, and sets out a careful process for the disclosure of sensitive medical records, balancing the need for evidence with privacy concerns.

The appellant, M.M., appealed a suspended sentence and three years' probation for criminal harassment, arguing the trial judge erred by considering the "gendered context" as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, affirming that it was open to the trial judge to consider the context of criminal harassment often occurring when a woman rejects a man's advances.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decision that a conditional discharge was contrary to the public interest and dismissed the fresh evidence application.

The accused applied for costs against the Crown following a trial where he was convicted of theft and assault but acquitted of sexual assault.

The application stemmed from the Crown's delayed and initially redacted disclosure of a complainant's 911 call, which necessitated a formal disclosure application and caused a lengthy trial adjournment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the disclosure failures were systemic and inadvertent, they did not constitute a "marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution" or result in "extreme hardship" to the accused, which are the high thresholds required for an award of costs against the Crown in criminal matters.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for sexual assault and possession of a weapon.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and by failing to provide an interpreter for a Crown witness whose first language was not English.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference and that she properly exercised her discretion in allowing the witness to testify in English without an interpreter.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle arising from an incident in which police found him standing outside a parked truck on the shoulder of Highway 401.

The trial judge convicted on the impaired charge but acquitted on the over‑80 charge, providing brief oral reasons that largely summarized the evidence and arguments without analyzing them.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the reasons were legally inadequate and prevented meaningful appellate review.

The court held that trial reasons must disclose the logical connection between the evidence, the law, and the verdict, and must resolve the substance of the live issues, including credibility and key factual findings.

Because the trial judge failed to make essential findings or explain the basis for the conviction and acquittal, the reasons were insufficient.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.