Cidalia C. G. Faria

The defendant, Hurshed Tursunov, was charged with impaired driving and sexual assault.

The charges arose from a collision with a TTC bus, subsequent observations of intoxication by a civilian witness and paramedics, and an alleged sexual assault on a paramedic.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, relying on the civilian witness's observations and the defendant's admission of being drunk, corroborated by professional witnesses' observations and a booking video.

For the sexual assault, the court found the actus reus and mens rea proven beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the defendant's actions and subsequent demeanor.

The defendant, Hamed Nadi, was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample after a Mandatory Alcohol Screening (MAS) demand.

The defence argued the demand was invalid due to a 6-minute delay and incorrect information provided by the officer regarding the consequences of refusal versus failing the test.

The court found the 6-minute delay reasonable for administrative tasks and training, and that the officer's incomplete information about consequences did not taint the demand, as the defendant's refusal was unequivocal and occurred both before and after the information was given.

The defendant was found guilty.

This criminal trial addressed charges of impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample, alongside a Charter s. 9 application alleging arbitrary detention due to an 'over-hold' in police custody.

The court found the defendant was severely intoxicated and that the detention, lasting nearly six hours, was justified for public safety and was continuously monitored.

The s. 9 Charter application was dismissed, and the defendant was found guilty of both impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample.

This ruling concerns a voir dire to determine the competence of a proposed Uzbek language interpreter for the defendant's criminal trial on charges of impaired driving and sexual assault.

The defendant required an Uzbek interpreter, and previous attempts to qualify one were unsuccessful.

The court assessed the proposed interpreter, Mr. Bakhtier Shakhnazarov, against the criteria for competent interpretation, including proficiency, type of interpretation, level of need, length and type of proceeding, complexity, and demonstrated ability.

Despite the defendant's counsel raising concerns about formal accreditation and criminal trial experience, the court found Mr. Shakhnazarov competent, emphasizing that accreditation is not dispositive and his extensive experience and education in legal contexts demonstrated the necessary proficiency.

Jessy Mandino pleaded guilty to two counts of residential break and enter.

The Crown sought a sentence of 3.5 to 4 years, while the defence proposed 2 years.

The court considered Mandino's extensive criminal record and the significant victim impact as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, substance dependency, and the application of Gladue principles due to intergenerational trauma and anti-Indigenous racism, despite the absence of a formal Gladue report.

The court acknowledged that past incarceration had not deterred the offender.

Mandino was sentenced to 3 years in the penitentiary, concurrent, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg after a late-night collision involving a lamp post and parked vehicles.

The accused argued that the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable, alleging a section 8 Charter violation, and that the indicia of impairment could be attributed to other factors.

The court found that the timeline of events, including necessary safety and translation tasks, justified the delay in taking the breath samples.

The court also found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol based on multiple indicia of impairment.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was tried on charges of committing an indecent act in a public place and exposing his genital organs for a sexual purpose to a child under 16 at a busy public swimming pool.

The court accepted the evidence of civilian and police witnesses that the accused masturbated in the pool area and on the pool deck in the presence of families and children.

Applying the authorities on sexual purpose and intent to expose, the court held that actual observation by the child was not legally necessary, although the evidence established that the child was present, observed the conduct, and spoke to his parents about it.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Makara Cheung was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and having a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

He was found asleep in his running vehicle after a company holiday party, with high blood alcohol readings.

The defence argued he had no intention to drive and had arranged for his wife to pick him up, thus rebutting the presumption of care or control.

The court found the wife's testimony not credible and rejected the defence's plan.

Considering the defendant's extreme impairment, readily available keys, running vehicle, and unpredictable conduct, the court concluded there was a realistic risk of danger to persons or property.

Cheung was found guilty on both counts.

The accused, charged with impaired driving, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was over 25 months.

The court deducted defence delay and a significant period of delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The remaining delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found the defence did not demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, and the application was dismissed.