Cecilia Dolorosa Georgette Kathleen Marie Bouzane

The court sentenced J.P. Dominic Mignac for aggravated assault and resisting arrest following a stabbing incident at a Burger King.

The court found the case fell within the mid-range of sentencing for aggravated assault, considering factors such as provocation, lack of criminal record, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects.

The sentence imposed was two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by three years' probation, and included ancillary orders such as a DNA order and weapons prohibition.

The decision reviews the applicable sentencing principles and case law, emphasizing the balance between denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent, B.S.L., on charges including sexual assault and uttering threats.

The appeal raised two grounds: first, that the trial judge erred by failing to act as a gatekeeper against inadmissible evidence of other sexual activity under s. 276 of the Criminal Code; and second, that the trial judge relied on speculation and conjecture to make adverse credibility findings about the complainant, particularly regarding an audio recording.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or credibility findings, and that the defence's questioning about the recording's date did not constitute s. 276 evidence.

The accused brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 677 days (22.5 months), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for summary conviction cases.

The Crown argued for defence-caused delay and exceptional circumstances (JPT judge not authorizing sufficient trial time).

The court found no defence-caused delay and determined that while the JPT judge's decision was unforeseen, the Crown failed to take reasonable steps to remedy the delay by not seeking a pre-trial motion before the trial judge.

Consequently, the Crown could not rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay, and a stay of proceedings was granted.

The accused, Dominic Mignac, was charged with seven counts, including aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, attempted murder, and resisting arrest, following a stabbing incident at a Burger King.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest.

However, the charges of attempted murder, uttering a death threat, and carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace were dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill and the purpose of carrying the knife.

The defence of self-defence was rejected as the accused's actions were not deemed a reasonable or proportional response to any perceived threat, particularly after the victim had disengaged.

The appellant, Hany Komy, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the trial judge did misapprehend some evidence concerning the appellant's testimony about a complainant's hiring and training, this misapprehension was not material to the overall credibility assessment.

The trial judge had numerous other valid reasons for her negative credibility finding, including the appellant's combative demeanor, evasiveness, self-serving answers, and failure to comply with the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg within two hours of operating a conveyance.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, seeking exclusion of breath samples and statements.

The court found no violation of the "immediately" requirement for the ASD demand and no residual mouth alcohol issue.

However, a s. 10(b) Charter violation was found due to a 7-minute delay in providing rights to counsel after arrest.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the breath sample evidence and statements should not be excluded.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the defendant's BAC was at least 160 mg.