Ashish Duvadie

The accused pleaded guilty to being unlawfully in a dwelling-house contrary to s. 349 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved the accused forcing her way into the home of an elderly couple, demanding keys, and physically assaulting both victims, causing injuries requiring hospitalization.

The Crown sought a 12-month conditional sentence order followed by probation and restitution.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, emphasizing the accused's first-time offender status, guilty plea, remorse, and employment in the educational system.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with conditions including 18 months of probation, 100 hours of community service, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a non-contact order, and restitution of $90.00.

This was an application by Virginia Dolinska to be discharged as counsel of record for the accused, S.S., who is facing multiple serious criminal charges and is in custody.

Ms. Dolinska sought to withdraw due to anonymous threats received related to her representation of S.S., which caused her to fear for her safety, and a perceived loss of trust in the solicitor-client relationship.

The accused stated he had not lost confidence in his counsel.

The court considered the potential prejudice to the accused, including possible delays to scheduled trial and severance application dates, but ultimately granted the application, noting that the perception of counsel not being fully committed due to safety fears was contrary to the interests of justice.

Following a trial where the offender was found guilty of sexual assault involving penetrative intercourse, the court delivered its sentencing decision.

The victim suffered profound and lasting physical, emotional, psychological, and financial harm.

The Crown sought a minimum of 3 years imprisonment, while the defence proposed a 24-month conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives, rejecting a conditional sentence due to the violent and invasive nature of the crime and numerous aggravating factors.

Despite the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and potential immigration consequences, the court imposed a sentence of 5 years in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders for DNA, a 10-year weapon prohibition, and a 25-year SOIRA order.

A young person was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon (knife), possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and breach of an undertaking not to possess a weapon, following an altercation on Rideau Street in Ottawa.

The Crown relied on direct evidence from a security guard that the defendant stabbed the victim twice.

The defence argued self-defence and contended the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally stabbed the victim.

The court found the direct evidence unreliable due to poor lighting, obstructed views, and significant inconsistencies among the three security guards' accounts.

While circumstantial evidence established the defendant held the knife when it came into contact with the victim, the court could not conclude the stabbing was voluntary or intentional.

The court found an air of reality to the self-defence claim, as the defendant was being attacked by multiple persons, including being struck with a construction pylon.

All charges were dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an eight-day family law trial.

Both the applicant (father) and respondent (mother) sought costs, but the court found there was "divided success" on the main issues of custody and parenting arrangements.

Neither party obtained an order more favourable than their Rule 18(14) offers to settle.

The court also noted issues with vague offers and the failure to deal with costs at each step of the litigation as per Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules.

Ultimately, the court ordered no costs, with each party bearing their own costs for the trial, case conference, and settlement conference.

The Applicant father sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and a change in child support.

The Respondent mother sought sole custody, reduced access, table child support, sharing of s. 7 expenses, reimbursement of Child Tax Credit and daycare costs, and a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances, awarded joint custody to both parents, and maintained the existing parenting schedule (not equal time for father, not reduced for mother).

The father was ordered to pay table child support and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses, and to reimburse the mother for half of a Child Tax Credit payment and agreed daycare/coin costs.

The mother's request for a restraining order was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of fear for safety.