Charn Gill

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with first degree murder in the death of Xhuljeta Vlashi on August 27, 2012.

The Crown sought to establish that the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court heard evidence over five days from approximately thirty witnesses, reviewed agreed statements of fact, forensic reports, and eleven exhibits.

The accused suffered from documented schizophrenia and killed the one person in his life who was caring for him while she was on a video call with her niece.

The court found that while the evidence clearly established the accused killed the victim intentionally, there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for first degree murder.

The killing appeared impulsive, rash, and irrational, with no prior animosity, threats, or rational motive.

The court committed the accused to stand trial on the lesser charge of second degree murder.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm, leaving the scene of an accident, and theft of property following an incident on January 22, 2012.

The defendant was hired to transport a photo booth for two business partners.

A dispute arose over compensation.

When the defendant attempted to leave with the booth, a friend of the business partners placed himself on the hood of the vehicle.

The defendant drove slowly to escape, and the friend fell off and was injured.

The court found the defendant not guilty of all charges, accepting the necessity defence for the dangerous driving charge and finding the defendant had an honest colour of right claim regarding the booth.

The applicants, a mother and daughter, were arrested at Pearson Airport after a sniffer dog alerted to them and customs officers found they were wearing shorts containing cocaine under their dresses.

They brought a motion to exclude the evidence and stay the proceedings, alleging violations of their Charter rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found a violation of s. 10(b) due to a 41-minute delay in facilitating access to duty counsel, but dismissed the other Charter claims, finding the dog sniff, arrests, and strip searches were lawful in the border context.

Applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) and found a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, misapprehended testimony, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) principles and the Sheppard standard for sufficiency of reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were detailed, properly addressed the evidence, and correctly applied the law.

The court upheld the finding that the complainant was too intoxicated to consent and that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.