Armin Sethi

The defendant, G.B., was found guilty after a judge-alone trial of one count of Sexual Interference (s.151 Criminal Code) and one count of Invitation to Sexual Touching (s.152 Criminal Code) involving his daughter, H.B., over a protracted period from ages 7-8 to 13-14.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, giving particular weight to the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9.

Aggravating factors included abuse of a position of trust (father-daughter relationship), the victim being under 18, and the repeated nature of the abuse.

The sole mitigating factor was the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence must predominate in such cases.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, relied on ungrounded common-sense assumptions, misapplied the W.(D.) framework, and erred in analyzing mens rea.

The appeal centered on a sexual encounter where the complainant testified she revoked consent to anal intercourse, which the appellant ignored.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, her application of the W.(D.) test, or her conclusion that the appellant had actual knowledge of the complainant's lack of consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her summary convictions for impaired care and control and 'over 80'.

At trial, the judge relied on the evidence of two security guards to dismiss the appellant's Charter application, despite an explicit agreement between counsel that their testimony would only apply to the trial proper and not the voir dire.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's use of this evidence denied the appellant procedural fairness and a fair trial.

The convictions were quashed and a new trial was ordered.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document.

While employed as a bookkeeper for a property management company, she defrauded the company and various condominium corporations of approximately $340,000 over a nine-month period.

The accused sent the funds to an individual she met online and believed she was helping someone in distress who would repay her.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by three years' probation, finding that denunciation and general deterrence required incarceration despite significant mitigating factors including genuine remorse, good character, and the accused's own victimization by an online romance scam.