Ayushi Kiran

The offender was convicted of two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of using an imitation firearm to commit an indictable offence.

The offender was experiencing drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offences, having consumed marijuana despite a documented history of psychotic episodes triggered by cannabis use and multiple hospitalizations where medical professionals warned him of the dangers.

The offender absconded before sentencing.

The court imposed a two-year custodial sentence (one year concurrent on assault charges, one year consecutive on the firearm charge) plus two years probation, finding the offender's moral culpability to be extremely high given his awareness of the risks and prior violent incidents while intoxicated.

The defendant, Ephraim Mohlala, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the defendant.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found the complainant generally truthful but with several reliability concerns and one credibility concern, particularly regarding inconsistencies and omissions in her statements about the incident, alcohol consumption, and injuries.

While the court did not entirely believe the defendant's denial of sexual contact, it found that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, coupled with the burden of proof on the prosecution, left the court in a state of reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted.

The accused, Jordette Wilson, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging a violation of her right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from charge to trial date was nearly three years, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court analyzed various periods of delay, attributing some to the COVID-19 pandemic and some to defence actions (failure to retain counsel, counsel availability).

A significant portion of the delay was found to be caused by the Crown's late disclosure of material evidence and misinformation regarding the identity of the arresting officer, which led to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and the need for new counsel.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish a basis to find the excess delay reasonable, concluding that the accused's s.11(b) Charter rights were violated, and granted a stay of proceedings.