Ferhan Javed

The accused was charged with robbery with a knife, possession of a knife for a dangerous purpose, and unlawfully being in a dwelling house arising from a home invasion robbery.

The Crown's case relied primarily on identification evidence from the victim and a witness who called 911.

The victim could not identify the assailants.

The witness provided identification through a 911 call but later testified he only "vaguely" identified the accused based on information from a third party rather than direct observation.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to multiple factors including the witness's drug use at the time, significant discrepancies in physical descriptions (particularly height), inconsistencies between the 911 call and trial testimony, and the fleeting nature of the observation.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine for trafficking, possession of heroin for trafficking, possession of hydromorphone for trafficking, possession of cannabis for trafficking, possession of hashish for trafficking, and possession of hashish oil for trafficking, as well as failing to comply with a probation order.

The Crown conceded counts 1 and 3.

The central issues were whether the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the defendant, whether the strip search was conducted lawfully, and whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under the Charter.

The court found that while the police had reasonable grounds to arrest and the strip search was justified, it was not conducted in a reasonable manner, violating section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence from the strip search was excluded.

The defendant was convicted of the included offences of simple possession of marijuana, hashish, and hashish oil, and failing to comply with probation.

Crown appeal from an acquittal of a defendant charged with driving a heavy vehicle on a prohibited highway contrary to the City of Oshawa Traffic By-law 79-99.

The trial judge acquitted the defendant by finding that the prosecution bore the burden of proving the defendant knew of or intended to violate the bylaw.

The appellate court found the trial judge erred by imposing a mens rea requirement on a strict liability offence and by improperly relying on section 134(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, which did not apply to municipal bylaws.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that once the actus reus was proven, the burden shifted to the defendant to establish a due diligence defence under the strict liability framework.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit and impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The accused brought a motion alleging that his right to trial within a reasonable period of time under s.11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been infringed, seeking a stay of proceedings.

The total delay was approximately 14.5 months from the date of the alleged offence.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan and found that while the delay fell below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court cases, the defence had not met its onus of demonstrating that the delay was markedly unreasonable.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol content exceeded 80 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused's vehicle had run out of gas on the roadway, and he was found seated in the driver's seat waiting for a tow truck to bring him fuel.

Police conducted a roadside investigation, obtained a failed approved screening device test, and subsequently obtained two breath samples exceeding the legal limit.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the investigation and arrest on Charter grounds and argued that the Crown had failed to prove care and control.

The court rejected all Charter challenges and found that the Crown had proven de facto care and control beyond a reasonable doubt, alternatively relying on the presumption in s.258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was convicted.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on five counts of robbery with an offensive weapon against both defendants, with additional charges against Moore for disguising with a bandana and possession of a weapon.

The central issue was identification of the perpetrator(s) based on circumstantial evidence.

The Crown's theory was that Moore committed the robberies with Stanojevic as the getaway driver.

The court admitted similar fact evidence regarding the robberies and found sufficient circumstantial evidence linking Moore to all robberies.

Moore was committed to trial on all counts.

Stanojevic was committed on the August 21 robbery but discharged on the August 12 robbery, as there was insufficient evidence linking her to that incident.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a breath demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant refused to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device on his driveway after being investigated by police for a possible impaired driving offense.

The defendant claimed he had a reasonable excuse for his refusal based on pre-existing anxiety and fear of police officers.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable grounds to make the breath demand, that the defendant's refusal was clear and unequivocal, and that the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing a reasonable excuse.

The court rejected the defendant's Charter arguments regarding unlawful search and seizure and the right to counsel.

The defendant was found guilty.

The applicant sought a reference hearing under section 74 of the Firearms Act to review the Chief Firearms Officer's refusal to issue a firearms license.

The applicant lived on a farm and sought a license to protect livestock from coyotes.

At the time of application, the applicant was in a common law relationship with a member of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, a designated criminal organization.

The firearms officer refused the application citing public safety concerns under section 5(1) of the Act.

The court upheld the refusal, finding that the officer was entitled to consider the applicant's association with a member of a criminal organization when assessing public safety, and that the applicant's continued association with the member after the refusal demonstrated a lack of judgment regarding the gravity of the public safety concerns.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The trial proceeded over three dates spanning approximately 18.7 months from the date the information was sworn.

The accused brought an application alleging a breach of his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court found that institutional delay of approximately 11.5 months exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months for this level of court.

The court also found evidence of actual prejudice, including stress, financial burden, and impact on family relationships.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the minimum remedy for the constitutional violation.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified contrary to section 259(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused drove a motor vehicle on Highway 401 in Pickering while bound by a provincial suspension.

The accused testified that he was unaware of the suspension, believing it had expired on June 19, 2013, when in fact it remained in effect until June 19, 2015.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the suspension.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with Over 80 mgs. contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He brought a pre-trial Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, seeking exclusion of breath samples and statements obtained following his detention and arrest.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the s.8 argument and particulars of the alleged s.7 and s.8 breaches.

The court dismissed both the Crown's application for summary dismissal and its request for particulars, finding that where a warrantless seizure is alleged, the Crown bears the burden of establishing lawful preconditions, and the defendant need not provide detailed particulars beyond putting the Crown on notice of the issue.

A preliminary inquiry into charges of human trafficking, forcible confinement, dangerous driving, and related offences.

The Crown sought committal on all counts.

The court committed the accused on counts relating to trafficking in persons, material benefit, dangerous driving (both counts), forcible confinement, and failure to comply with undertaking.

The court discharged the accused on counts of escape from lawful custody and failure to stop for police, finding insufficient evidence on the essential elements.

The court also granted bail with stringent conditions, finding that a suitable supervision plan could manage the risk of reoffending.

The defendant was charged with multiple criminal and provincial offences including impaired driving, driving while under suspension, and taking a motor vehicle without consent.

Prior to trial, the court was asked to determine whether the alleged common-law spouse of the defendant was a competent and compellable witness for the Crown.

The court found that the parties were in a common-law relationship and extended the spousal non-compellability rule to common-law couples, finding that the existing common-law rule was discriminatory and inconsistent with modern Charter values.

The court granted a common-law remedy extending the non-compellability aspect of the spousal immunity rule to common-law couples without requiring a formal constitutional challenge.