Arif Hussain

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his semen found on a towel worn by the complainant.

The appellant claimed the semen was present because he was having an affair with the complainant's mother, who used the towel to clean him.

The trial judge rejected this evidence, finding no affair existed and the explanation implausible.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence, concluding the trial judge's findings were open to her and the inconsistencies regarding the towel's location did not undermine the DNA evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Asim Shabbir, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, alleging fundamental errors in the trial judge's jury instructions.

The grounds of appeal included the failure to provide a "Villaroman" instruction regarding circumstantial evidence (specifically, the complainant's alleged drugging), inadequate instructions on assessing evidence inconsistencies, and a "Laboucan" error concerning the accused's credibility.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury instructions, when read as a whole and in context, were functionally adequate.

The court noted the defence counsel's failure to object to the instructions at trial and that closing submissions could address certain gaps.

The court also found no error in the instruction regarding separate consideration of co-accused.

The applicant, a taxpayer in Toronto, sought to quash a City of Toronto by-law that provided a one-time contribution of up to $100,000 to legal challenges against Quebec's Bill 21.

The applicant argued the by-law was ultra vires as it lacked a valid municipal purpose.

The court found that the by-law, which funded litigation against a Quebec law with no extra-territorial effect on Torontonians, did not serve a valid municipal purpose related to the social or economic well-being of the City.

Citing precedents like Shell Canada and Eng v. Toronto, the court concluded that giving 'voice to values' was not a valid exercise of municipal power when the issue did not directly affect the local community.

The court granted the order, quashing the funding portion of the by-law and awarding costs to the applicant.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the plaintiff's action and a subsequent motion to restore it to the trial list.

The defendants sought fees and disbursements.

The court applied Rule 57 criteria, noting the serious allegations made by the plaintiff, numerous delays caused by the plaintiff's handling of the case, and the plaintiff's rejection of multiple settlement offers.

The court found the defendants' requested costs reasonable and ordered the plaintiff to pay specific amounts to the Bank of Montreal and York Regional Police, in addition to previously awarded motion costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2016 child support order, seeking termination of support and rescission of outstanding arrears, or alternatively, imputation of minimum wage from 2016.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's age and medical issues, but rejected his claim of non-service of the original application.

The court imputed income to the father from February 1, 2021, and adjusted child support accordingly.

However, the court refused to rescind arrears, citing the father's blameworthy conduct (abandoning children, failing to make payments or provide disclosure) and lack of full financial disclosure, ordering the arrears to be paid monthly.

The defendant, Collin Temoin, faced multiple charges including assault and criminal harassment related to his former girlfriend.

The court assessed conflicting accounts from the complainant, the defendant, and other witnesses regarding four alleged incidents.

The Crown's case relied heavily on credibility findings.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be cautious due to inconsistencies and combative demeanor, while the defendant's candor regarding sending a hurtful email was noted.

Ultimately, the court found the defendant guilty of one count of assault (Father's Day incident) and one count of assault (Blake Court incident), dismissing the charges related to the Niagara Falls incident and criminal harassment.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing his brother to death following a dispute over a loan.

The court considered the mandatory life sentence and determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

Weighing numerous aggravating factors, including the unprovoked nature of the attack outside the home and the presence of the victim's wife, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a prior record and refugee background, the court fixed the period of parole ineligibility at 13 years.

The defendant, R.K., faced six counts of sexual assault against his former wife.

The trial focused on whether the prosecution proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling but incredible, lacking precision and detail, and potentially influenced by motives related to cultural blame and a civil lawsuit.

The friend's testimony contradicted the complainant's narrative regarding the location of the alleged assaults.

While the defendant's testimony was unconvincing, the court could not ascertain what transpired and was left with a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of all charges.

Mohammed Younus was tried for the murder of his brother, Shamsul Alamshah.

The initial charge of first-degree murder was reduced to second-degree murder.

The court assessed the accused's defenses of accident, self-defence, and provocation.

The judge found Younus's testimony incredible and unreliable, concluding that he was the aggressor in the fatal stabbing.

The court rejected all defenses, finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Younus intended to cause death or bodily harm likely to cause death.

Younus was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The Crown brought a Seaboyer application seeking to adduce evidence of the complainant's consensual sexual activity with the accused immediately prior to the alleged assault and sexual assault with a weapon.

The accused did not oppose the application.

The court granted the application, finding the evidence admissible for the limited purpose of providing narrative context as to why the complainant was unclothed at the time of the alleged offences, and that its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, sought to exclude a statement made to police, arguing it was involuntary and obtained in breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel due to language barriers.

The court found that the accused understood the police cautions and his right to remain silent, despite some initial confusion.

The court also held that the accused's right to counsel was not breached, as he was provided with a Bengali interpreter when consulting duty counsel and during his police interview.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The accused was charged with operation impaired and blow over 80 following a collision with a stationary vehicle.

The accused raised Charter challenges regarding alleged breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter, claiming infringement of his rights to counsel and arguing special circumstances warranting an interpreter.

The court found no breaches of s. 10(a) or (b), rejected the language/special circumstances argument, and found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The court also rejected the argument that the vehicle was inoperable and therefore the accused was not in care or control.

The accused was found guilty of operation impaired; the blow over 80 charge was stayed.