David Michael Butler

The applicant, Safeer Ahmad, sought a second bail release under Section 522 of the Criminal Code, having been charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

The application was based on a change of circumstances, specifically the addition of new sureties (his mother and a cousin) to supplement previously proposed sureties.

The court, reading the reasons together with the previous ruling, found the allegations exceedingly serious, involving a gang-related shooting that resulted in one death and multiple injuries.

While acknowledging the new sureties slightly improved supervision, the court deemed their value marginal given the gravity of the offence and the strength of the Crown's case.

The application was dismissed on both the secondary ground (risk to public safety) and the tertiary ground (maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice), emphasizing the high onus on the applicant in such serious cases and the growing public intolerance for gun violence.

The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for the complainant in a sexual assault case to testify via video link from her home, citing her childcare responsibilities and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant opposed, raising concerns about evidentiary risks (witness tampering, reduced psychological controls, technological limitations) and trial fairness.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence regarding the suitability of the complainant's home, the adequacy of the technology, and the actual inconvenience to the witness, despite acknowledging the pandemic context.

The defendants were convicted after trial of assault with weapons for attacking the victim with knives in a parking lot on July 31, 2016.

The victim sustained a significant cut to his left arm requiring ten staples to close, leaving a permanent scar.

The court found both defendants equally culpable despite being unable to determine which defendant inflicted the wound.

The sentencing judge rejected both a suspended sentence and a conditional sentence, imposing four months custody followed by two years probation with strict conditions including anger management, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code and several highway traffic offences following a motor vehicle crash on the 407 at the 400 ramp.

The Crown proved the accused was prohibited from driving at the time of the crash.

The sole issue was identification—whether the Crown proved the accused drove the vehicle and fled the scene.

Two Crown witnesses provided descriptions of the driver, but neither participated in a photo lineup.

The court found the in-dock identification, based on general observations and not tested by a photo lineup, could not be given much weight.

The charge was dismissed as the Crown failed to prove the identity of the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, a licensed taxi driver, was charged with failing to be civil and well-behaved while operating a taxi cab in Toronto, contrary to the Toronto Municipal Code.

The complainant passenger testified that the defendant made discriminatory and insulting comments about various groups including Jamaicans, Jewish people, police officers, Canadian women, and the city of Mumbai.

The defendant denied making the statements.

The court found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, determining that his comments violated both the municipal licensing requirement and the Ontario Human Rights Code.