Dr. Chauhan

A young person was found guilty at trial of three counts of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and one count of unlawful confinement committed at age 16, and pleaded guilty to one count of uttering threats, one count of criminal harassment, and two counts of failing to comply with probation terms committed as an adult.

The offences were committed against the mother of his child over a prolonged period involving repeated physical and sexual violence, followed by years of harassment via social media.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years custody and community supervision for the youth offences and three years imprisonment for the adult offences, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, weapons prohibitions, and no-contact orders.

The appellant, who was found Not Criminally Responsible for breach of recognizance and criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He argued the finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, including the appellant's lack of insight, refusal to take medication, and intended cannabis use, which experts testified would increase his risk of physical aggression.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits as an unemployed person.

He subsequently claimed he had a valid offer of employment at the time of the accident and should receive higher benefits under section 12 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer terminated his benefits entirely on June 17, 1994, arguing he was no longer substantially unable to perform his essential tasks.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not have a legitimate pre-accident offer of employment.

Relying on medical reports and surveillance video showing the applicant driving and assisting passengers, the arbitrator concluded the applicant could perform his essential tasks and upheld the termination of benefits.

The arbitrator also found the applicant's subsequent shoulder dislocation was not caused by the accident.

The applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.