Artem Orlov

Three young men were convicted by jury of aggravated assault following an unprovoked group attack on a social worker protecting a vulnerable child at a hotel in London, Ontario on December 29, 2021.

The victim was stabbed five times and suffered multiple injuries.

The court sentenced the offenders to terms of imprisonment, considering their youth, refugee backgrounds, family support systems, and immigration consequences, while emphasizing the serious nature of the group violence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court considered the appropriate scope of a mistrial declaration following a breach of the applicant’s right to full and complete disclosure under section 7 of the Charter.

The applicant sought a mistrial only on the counts for which he was convicted, while the Crown argued for a mistrial on all counts.

The court found that the undisclosed evidence would not have affected the acquittal on the third count and granted a mistrial only on counts 1 and 2, leaving the acquittal on count 3 undisturbed.

The applicant, Trevor Birtch, sought a mistrial on two counts of sexual and common assault after being found guilty, alleging a breach of his s. 7 Charter right to fundamental justice due to inadequate Crown disclosure.

A key witness statement (T.W.S.) relevant to the T.P. complainant's credibility was disclosed in a separate prosecution file and not reviewed by defence counsel until after the verdict.

The court found the Crown breached its disclosure obligation by failing to provide proper and targeted disclosure for the T.P. prosecution.

Applying the Palmer criteria for fresh evidence and considering the impact on trial fairness and credibility findings, the court granted the mistrial application, deeming it the only effective remedy to redress the Charter breach.

The defendant, Jesse Bleck, was found guilty by a jury of failing to stop at an accident causing bodily harm and driving while prohibited.

The victim sustained catastrophic injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the defendant's prior driving record and defiance of court orders, and mitigating factors, such as his age, role as a primary caregiver, and pre-trial detention conditions.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the high moral blameworthiness and the legislative intent for harsher penalties for such offenses.

A global sentence of 54 months (4.5 years) imprisonment was imposed, along with driving prohibitions and other ancillary orders.

The accused, M.D., was charged with sexual assault.

The trial focused on whether the complainant, I.F., consented to the sexual activity.

The court found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and noted her reluctance to acknowledge mutual engagement, which raised reasonable doubt regarding her lack of consent and the accused's knowledge thereof.

The court acquitted the accused, finding that the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown sought to admit the defendant's video and audio-recorded statement as voluntary.

The defendant brought a cross-application alleging a breach of his s. 10(a) Charter rights, seeking exclusion of the statement.

The court found the statement voluntary but concluded that the defendant's s. 10(b) Charter rights were infringed because he was not given a full opportunity to engage with counsel after it became apparent he was confused about the extent of his jeopardy.

Applying the Grant factors, the court excluded the statement, finding the breach significant and not critical to the Crown's case.

The appellant appealed his conviction for Driving While Suspended, which resulted from a guilty plea entered by his court agent without his knowledge or informed consent.

The appellant was not present at the plea hearing, and the agent failed to review disclosure, advise him of the trial date, conduct pre-trial negotiations, or explain the consequences of the plea.

The court found that the agent's conduct was grossly negligent and constituted a miscarriage of justice, warranting the appeal be allowed and a new trial ordered.