Dr. Zeynep Selaman

The Crown sought to call Dr. Saumil Dholakia, a treating psychiatrist, as a participant expert to provide opinion evidence regarding his assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of the accused Hue Lam during the period from February 8 to September 30, 2022.

The defence opposed the admission of Dr. Dholakia's opinion evidence, arguing that if qualified as an expert, the jury would improperly compare his opinions with those of Dr. Zeynep Selaman, a litigation expert retained by the defence.

The court ruled that Dr. Dholakia could testify as a participant expert and provide opinion evidence within defined parameters, finding that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by prejudicial effects and that appropriate jury instructions could address defence concerns.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert psychiatric evidence and hospital records in a first-degree murder trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The accused sought to introduce seven hospital records as business records and expert opinion evidence from a forensic psychiatrist regarding the accused's mental health condition, the effects of chronic abuse, and related psychiatric concepts.

The Crown opposed both applications on grounds of hearsay, prejudicial effect, and necessity.

The court admitted the hospital records as business records and qualified the expert to provide opinion evidence on psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, causes, and impacts of mental disorders, while restricting the expert from opining on the specific conduct of the accused.

The court ruled on whether the defences of self-defence and provocation should be put to the jury in a case where two sisters admitted to killing their elderly mother.

The accused claimed they acted in self-defence based on a lifetime of physical and verbal abuse, which escalated in the week preceding the killing.

The court found an air of reality to the self-defence defence for both accused, considering the chronic abuse, the accused's cultural background, their mental health conditions, and the modified objective test applicable to self-defence.

The court rejected the provocation defence due to insufficient specificity regarding the triggering act and the lack of evidence that the accused acted "on the sudden."

This decision addresses sentencing for a sexual offence involving under-the-clothes digital touching of an 11-year-old girl by her stepfather.

The accused was found guilty after rejecting his defence of lack of intention and NCR-MD.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day, including 15 months of house arrest, followed by three years probation.

The sentencing analysis considered the accused's Indigenous background, mental and physical health issues, low risk of reoffence, and the serious victim impact.

The court carefully weighed the principles of denunciation and deterrence, the abuse of trust, and the availability of conditional sentences post-R. v. Friesen and related jurisprudence.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Board's finding of a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision to maintain a conditional discharge.

The court found that despite some progress, the appellant's recent threatening and physically aggressive conduct, including an offer to pay someone to stab his psychiatrist and multiple Code White incidents involving staff assaults, supported the Board's finding of a significant threat.

Fresh evidence regarding the appellant's improved mobility and subsequent aggressive behaviour was admitted and considered.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The offender had sexual intercourse with his daughter and sexually touched her on multiple occasions over several years prior to October 2017.

The victim became pregnant and underwent an abortion.

DNA testing confirmed the offender was the father.

The Crown sought 8-10 years imprisonment; defence counsel sought 5 years.

The court imposed a 9-year penitentiary sentence, reduced to 8 years and 320 days after crediting 45 days of pre-trial custody.

The offender was prohibited from seeking employment or volunteering with persons under 16, ordered to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years, and ordered to provide a DNA sample.