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 accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 31 months and 20 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling set in Jordan.

The Crown argued the delay was justified by the exceptional circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court agreed, finding the pandemic and its systemic impact constituted a discrete exceptional circumstance that reduced the net delay below the ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

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 offender was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, attempted murder, and forcible confinement against his intimate partner.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay convictions for uttering threats and assault, but declined to stay the forcible confinement conviction.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, the court sentenced the offender to a global term of 6 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

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, a nurse in a long-term care facility, was tried on five counts of sexual assault involving co-workers and a student trainee in a supervisory workplace context.

The court admitted the evidence on four counts as similar fact evidence, finding a distinctive pattern of unsolicited, spontaneous touching of subordinate workers in the same workplace.

Applying the W. (D.) framework and the sexual assault analysis from Chase, the court found the Crown proved guilt on three counts, including incidents involving grabbing a complainant's bottom, lifting a complainant's top to inspect whether pants were sheer, and multiple sexualized touching incidents against another complainant.

The accused was acquitted on two counts because the court either retained a reasonable doubt or was not satisfied the proven touching was sexual in nature beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, and breach of probation, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence of a defence witness and improperly assessed credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence and deferring to the trial judge's reasonable findings of fact and credibility assessments.

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.