Ayboub Ansari

The accused was charged with two counts of domestic violence against his wife: an assault in 2021 and an assault with a weapon (a beer can) in 2024.

The trial was primarily a credibility contest between the accused and the complainant, with both providing plausible but conflicting accounts of the incidents.

Applying the framework for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt, the court found that the Crown failed to prove its version of events beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on both charges.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The Crown's case at trial was entirely circumstantial, relying on the appellant's presence at his residence shortly after a white truck was reported driving erratically.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by rejecting an alternate suspect theory, misapprehending evidence regarding the vehicle's keys and timing of police arrival, and receiving inadmissible hearsay.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error, no material misapprehension of evidence, and that the trial judge did not rely on the inadmissible hearsay to convict.

This is a sentencing decision for a young person (H.W.) found guilty of sexual assault.

The court considered the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) principles, including the least restrictive sentence and the promotion of responsibility.

A key issue was whether the offence caused 'serious bodily harm,' which would preclude a deferred custody and supervision order under YCJA s. 42(5)(a).

The court found that the victim's profound and life-altering psychological impact, including PTSD, constituted serious bodily harm, thus precluding a deferred custody order.

Despite mitigating factors such as the offender's age and lack of prior record, the serious nature of the assault and the absence of remorse warranted a custodial sentence.

The court imposed a nine-month custody and supervision order, followed by fifteen months of probation, along with a DNA order and firearms prohibition.

The defendant was charged with "Over 80" after a traffic stop and breath tests.

The defence brought a Charter application arguing a breach of the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) due to a language barrier.

The court found that the defendant's comprehension of English was too deficient to understand his rights, and the officers failed to assess "special circumstances" or provide an interpreter.

Applying the Grant criteria, the court deemed the breach serious, excluded the breathalyzer readings, and found the defendant not guilty.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and 'over 80'.

The court found the defendant was the driver and impaired based on pre-arrest observations.

However, significant breaches of the defendant's Charter right to counsel (s. 10(b)) occurred at the police detachment, including insufficient explanation of counsel options, failure to address dissatisfaction with duty counsel, lack of a Prosper warning, and delayed facilitation of counsel access during breath testing.

Applying the Grant criteria, the court excluded the breathalyzer readings for the 'over 80' charge, resulting in an acquittal on that count.

The evidence for impaired care and control, obtained prior to the Charter breaches, was not excluded, leading to a conviction on that charge.