3 total
Accused found guilty of aggravated assault, confinement, and threats after pouring boiling water on complainant.
The accused was charged with multiple offences, including aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault, and uttering threats, arising from an incident where the complainant was held in an apartment for several hours.
The accused admitted to pouring boiling water on the complainant, constituting aggravated assault, but denied the other charges.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as implausible and internally inconsistent.
The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable regarding the confinement, beatings, head shaving, burning with a lighter, and threats, but found her evidence regarding the sexual assault too inconsistent to support a conviction.
The accused was found guilty of all charges except sexual assault.
Application for additional disclosure in extradition proceeding dismissed as a fishing expedition.
The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States on a charge of murder for hire, applied for an order for additional disclosure relating to the examination of his seized iPhone by Canadian police.
The applicant argued that the Second Revised Record of the Case (SRROC) lacked sufficient information to determine whether the search warrant was validly issued and executed in compliance with the Charter.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for additional disclosure in extradition proceedings, as the SRROC contained sufficient information to plausibly infer that the evidence was obtained lawfully and the applicant's request amounted to a fishing expedition.
Accused found guilty as a party to kidnapping and aggravated assault based on circumstantial video evidence.
The accused was charged with aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, kidnapping, and forcible confinement following an ambush in a parking garage.
The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and rental vehicle records, to prove the accused drove the pickup truck used by the assailants.
The court rejected the accused's alibi and found that the only reasonable inference was that he drove the truck.
The court convicted the accused as a party to the aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, and kidnapping under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, but acquitted him of forcible confinement.
