Brad Ververs

The accused, charged with aggravated sexual assault of his intimate partner, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process due to delayed disclosure regarding his seized cell phone, improper police access, and a breach of solicitor-client privilege in a second search warrant.

The court found no breach of privilege and that there was no improper police access.

However, the court identified serious omissions and false statements in the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the second warrant, leading to it being set aside.

Furthermore, the court found the police investigation into the phone's continuity was unacceptably delayed and uncooperative.

While a stay was denied because the state's conduct did not compromise trial fairness, the court found the state's conduct warranted an exceptional order for costs against the Crown.

The court sentenced Idriss Buni for aggravated assault against his intimate partner, Muna Riyaleh, following a knife attack.

The court found the appropriate sentence to be 7.5 years’ imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions.

The decision discusses the applicable sentencing range for aggravated assault in the context of intimate partner violence, the impact of recent legislative amendments, and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

The accused, Idriss Buni, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against Muna Riyaleh.

The central issue was whether Ms. Riyaleh was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack by Mr. Buni or whether she attacked him and was injured during a struggle.

The court found Ms. Riyaleh to be a credible witness and rejected Mr. Buni’s account as contrived and inconsistent with the evidence.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Buni’s guilt and found him guilty as charged.

The defendant brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained from a dash camera and its memory card, arguing a violation of section 8 of the Charter due to a warrantless search.

The court found that while the dash camera was lawfully seized under s.489(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, the subsequent search of its memory card was warrantless and violated the defendant's section 8 Charter rights, as the search warrant did not explicitly cover such a device.

However, applying the Grant test under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the police acted in good faith based on an understandable mistake, the evidence was inevitably discoverable, and its admission was crucial for the truth-seeking function of the trial, particularly regarding the defendant's statements about the altercation.

Consequently, the motion to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the audio and video recordings were deemed admissible.

The accused, Sajeeth Vijayakumaran, faced a six-count indictment for firearm possession and threatening bodily harm.

The court assessed the credibility of the main complainant, noting inconsistencies and potential bias due to her own outstanding criminal charges.

While the complainant's testimony regarding the threats was deemed uncorroborated and insufficient for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, her testimony about the accused's handgun and a unique lockbox was strongly corroborated by police findings during a search.

The court found the accused had constructive possession of the firearm and ammunition, having hidden them after an argument.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the threatening charges but found guilty of the three firearm possession offences.

The applicant, charged with multiple offences including attempted murder, brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) during her arrest and the execution of search warrants.

She sought various remedies including setting aside a warrant, a stay of proceedings, and exclusion of evidence.

The court found a breach of the applicant's s. 8 rights due to a warrantless search of her cell phone and a minor informational breach of her s. 10(b) right to counsel.

However, the court found no breach of s. 7 (rejecting claims of an unlawful strip search or denial of dignity/child access) and no implementational breach of s. 10(b).

The court excluded the evidence obtained from the cell phone but dismissed the application to exclude other physical evidence seized under the Criminal Code warrant and denied a stay of proceedings.