Appeared as counsel in 36 cases (2012–2024)
6 total
Accused acquitted of marital sexual assault and uttering threats due to reasonable doubt despite defence counsel's reliance on prohibited stereotypes.
The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting his wife on three occasions and uttering a threat to cause her death or bodily harm.
The complainant alleged the incidents occurred during their arranged marriage, while the defendant denied the allegations and claimed they were fabricated after he requested a divorce.
The court found the complainant's evidence had a ring of truth but lacked sufficient detail to prove the sexual assaults beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court also strongly condemned defence counsel's reliance on prohibited stereotypes and rape myths during cross-examination and submissions.
Ultimately, the court acquitted the defendant of all charges as the Crown failed to meet its burden of proof.
Accused found guilty of firearm possession based on circumstantial evidence after gun found under his car.
Trial on circumstantial evidence for possession of a loaded handgun found beneath the accused's vehicle.
A police officer observed the accused smoking cannabis in a parked car at a motel parking lot, drove past, and saw the accused exit and kneel beside the driver's door before attempting to walk away.
A loaded handgun was subsequently discovered under the vehicle within arm's reach of the driver's door.
No fingerprints attributable to the accused were found and DNA on the firearm belonged to an unknown male.
The court applied the Villaroman framework for circumstantial evidence, rejected defence arguments that the firearm could have been left by someone else, and found the only reasonable inference was that the accused possessed and discarded the firearm upon spotting the officer.
The court imposed a 14-month global custodial sentence for domestic assault, breach of undertaking, and distributing intimate images.
The defendant was convicted after trial of assaulting his wife, breaching an undertaking by communicating with her, and distributing an intimate video of his wife without consent.
The court imposed a global sentence of 14 months in custody followed by three years of probation.
The sentencing decision provides comprehensive analysis of the principles applicable to distributing intimate images without consent, including a detailed framework of aggravating and mitigating factors.
The court found the conduct to be at the higher end of the seriousness spectrum due to the domestic context, premeditated nature, targeted dissemination to family members, identifiability of the victim, and the profound impact on the victim and her family.
Charter Appeal decision
The accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography.
The court imposed a sentence of 3 years, reduced by 3.5 months for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and further reduced by 16.5 months for time already served (11 months credited at 1.5:1), resulting in a further 16 months to be served.
The court considered extensive aggravating factors including the size of the collection (3,324 images and 65 videos), the nature of the material depicting real children in graphic sexual acts, active participation in the child pornography subculture through trading and chat communications, and mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, cooperation with police, sincere remorse, and traumatic childhood involving sexual and physical abuse.
Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed as multi-defendant complexity justified the 18-month delay.
Two young persons charged with home invasions to facilitate vehicle theft applied for stays of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.
The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 18 months and 11 days.
The Crown acted proactively to secure earlier trial dates and the prosecution of multiple co-accused jointly was found to be in the interest of justice.
The court dismissed the application, finding the delay reasonable given the complexity of prosecuting multiple co-defendants and the need to accommodate counsel schedules.
Any judge in the judicial district may hear a remote testimony application, but the Crown's request was denied as convenience did not outweigh the need for in-person evidence.
The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether a judge who is not the trial judge or a case management judge appointed under s. 551.1 of the Criminal Code has jurisdiction to hear an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit the complainant in a sexual assault case to testify remotely by video from another province.
The court held that any judge having jurisdiction in the judicial district where the proceedings will take place may hear such an application, not only the trial or case management judge.
On the merits, the court denied the Crown’s application for remote testimony, finding that the witness’s inconvenience did not displace the presumption that testimony should be in person, especially given the seriousness of the charges and the witness’s ability to attend physically.
