Aravind Pillai

The court acquitted the defendant, A.C., of three counts of sexual assault, finding the evidence did not establish lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court accepted the defendant’s evidence as credible and consistent, and found significant inconsistencies and credibility concerns in the complainant’s testimony.

The court also found the defendant guilty of mischief and failing to comply with an undertaking, in accordance with his plea.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and related offences after acting as the driver of a vehicle involved in a shooting.

The court found he did not have foreknowledge of the shooting but became aware of the firearm in the glove compartment during the five-minute drive before police intercepted the vehicle.

Weighing the gravity of firearm offences against the offender's strong rehabilitative prospects and limited moral culpability, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community, followed by two years of probation.

Peter Kell was tried for impaired operation of a conveyance and refusal to provide a breath sample.

He brought a Charter application under s. 10(b) seeking exclusion of the refusal evidence, arguing police failed to provide a "Prosper-style warning" upon his waiver of the right to counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no breach of s. 10(b) as the accused had not been frustrated in attempts to reach counsel and clearly refused counsel.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the refusal was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the impaired operation was also proven by circumstantial evidence, even without the adverse inference from the refusal.

The accused, Wasitt Izaz, was charged with nine firearms-related offences as the driver of a vehicle from which two occupants exited and committed a shooting.

The Crown sought to establish criminal responsibility based on party liability and constructive possession.

The court found the accused not guilty of the first six counts, which related to aiding the shooting and possession of one of the firearms (Glock 30), due to reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of the firearms and intent prior to the shooting.

However, the court found the accused guilty of counts 7, 8, and 9, related to the constructive possession of the second firearm (Glock 21) found in the glove compartment, concluding that he had knowledge and control of it after the shooting occurred.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with judicial interim release conditions (curfew and weapons prohibition) after a traffic stop.

He brought a Charter application alleging violations of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the accused's detention became arbitrary, his s. 10(a) rights were violated by delayed notification of reasons for detention, and his s. 10(b) rights were violated by delayed access to counsel and incomplete information.

The search of his person and wallet was also found to be illegal.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court excluded the seized weapons due to serious police misconduct and significant impact on the accused's Charter rights, leading to a finding of not guilty on the weapons charge.

The curfew charge was dismissed earlier by the Crown.