Randy Still

The accused was tried without a jury on a charge of first degree murder arising from a fatal stabbing outside a men's shelter after an earlier brief physical altercation with the deceased.

The court relied on surveillance evidence, eyewitness evidence, expert DNA and pathology evidence, and extensive admissions by the accused that he returned armed with a knife, waited for the deceased to emerge, and attacked from behind to exact revenge.

The court rejected the accused's evidence that he intended only to hurt, not kill, and found that any mental health issues did not prevent formation of the requisite intent.

Applying the requirements of ss. 229 and 231(2) of the Criminal Code, the court held the killing was murder and was both planned and deliberate.

A conviction for first degree murder was entered.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of manslaughter against Ahmed Rafin following the fatal stabbing of Maahir Dosani during a schoolyard swarming incident.

The Crown argued unlawful act manslaughter, positing that Rafin either intentionally stabbed his attackers (with Dosani being an incidental victim) or committed offenses of weapon possession and threatening.

The defence contended that Rafin acted in self-defence and lacked the requisite intent.

The court found Rafin to be a credible witness, accepting his testimony that he displayed a knife to deter an angry, armed, and numerically superior crowd while attempting to retreat.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafin committed an unlawful act causing Dosani's death, leading to an acquittal.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and breach of probation.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on eyewitness testimony that the accused was positioned on top of an unconscious woman in a park, DNA evidence showing the complainant's DNA on the accused's penis, and statements allegedly made by the accused.

The accused testified that his contact with the complainant was innocent and that her DNA came to be on his penis through a prank involving a tissue.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the eyewitness evidence, the accused's incriminating statements, and the DNA evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had intercourse with the unconscious complainant.