Brigitte Laplante

The accused was found guilty of criminal harassment for sending threatening messages to the victim via WhatsApp.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence requested an absolute discharge to avoid negative impacts on the accused's permanent residency application.

The court noted the accused's lack of remorse but acknowledged his compliance with bail conditions.

Balancing the principles of sentencing and the potential immigration consequences, the court granted a conditional discharge with two years of probation and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

During a criminal trial, the trial judge noted a discrepancy between the dates of the offence in the indictment and the evidence presented, and requested written submissions from the parties on the issue.

The defence subsequently brought a motion for a mistrial, arguing that the judge's intervention raised a reasonable apprehension of bias by allegedly suggesting the Crown reopen its case to amend the indictment.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the judge merely demonstrated vigilance by noting the discrepancy and requesting submissions, which did not constitute bias or an appearance of bias.

The accused was charged with assaulting the complainant by banging his head against a wall twice and tearing his lip, requiring eight stitches.

The complainant and accused were in a polygamous marriage under Sharia law.

The accused denied the assault, claiming the injury was self-inflicted or caused by someone else.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and corroborated by her daughter's testimony.

The complainant's evidence was found to be internally inconsistent, inconsistent with his prior affidavit, and motivated by financial and community concerns.

The court concluded the complainant intentionally injured himself after leaving the home and fabricated the assault allegation to gain leverage in family law proceedings and minimize his financial obligations.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol per hundred millilitres of blood following a traffic stop in Callander, Ontario on December 12, 2015.

The trial involved a blended trial and Charter application.

The defence raised two issues: (1) whether the Intoxilyzer samples were taken as soon as practicable, and (2) whether the officer properly utilized the approved screening device (ASD) to establish reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The court found that the samples were obtained as soon as practicable within a 37-minute period that included necessary processing and the accused's right to counsel.

The court also found that the officer's reliance on the ASD result was reasonable under the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty.