Ferhan Javed

The accused, a young person with autism, was charged with sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching against his younger cousin.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the evidence of the complainant, who testified via closed-circuit television and a videotaped statement.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be unreliable due to a tainted initial disclosure prompted by suggestive questioning from her mother, material inconsistencies between her various accounts, and the implausibility of the alleged repeated penile penetration occurring undetected in a busy household.

Finding that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused on all counts.

A young person charged with three counts of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving his younger cousin was acquitted of all charges.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a 13-year-old girl at trial who alleged repeated sexual assaults including penile penetration occurring approximately 25 times between August and December 2017.

The court found that while the complainant appeared credible in demeanor, her evidence suffered from significant reliability issues stemming from a tainted initial disclosure, material inconsistencies between her accounts to her mother, the Children's Aid Society, and police, and an implausible account of the alleged penile penetration incidents.

The court determined the Crown failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A police officer employed with the City of Kawartha Lakes Police Service pleaded guilty to breach of trust contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code.

The officer, who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and developed an opioid addiction following traumatic incidents during his policing career, stole drugs from an evidence locker and siphoned prescription pills from a pharmacy investigation.

His criminal conduct resulted in eight active drug prosecutions being stayed.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional discharge and a suspended sentence, finding that while the officer's addiction and PTSD constituted exceptional mitigating circumstances, a jail sentence was warranted.

However, the court imposed a conditional sentence order to be served in the community rather than incarceration, recognizing the officer's rehabilitation efforts and the need to balance denunciation and deterrence with individualized sentencing principles.

A young person charged with sexual interference and sexual assault sought production of records held by the Durham Children's Aid Society pursuant to section 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the two-stage Mills analysis to determine whether third-party records containing statements by the complainant and her mother regarding the criminal allegations and circumstances of disclosure should be produced.

The court found the records relevant to issues of credibility and narrative but balanced this against the high expectation of privacy attaching to child protection agency records.

The court ordered partial disclosure of specific portions of the records with strict conditions limiting further dissemination and use.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood and having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The trial proceeded following a successful Charter application under s.10(b) that resulted in the exclusion of breath samples.

The accused also brought a s.11(b) Charter motion alleging unreasonable delay, which was dismissed.

On the merits, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in care or control of the motor vehicle.

The statutory presumption of care or control was rebutted by evidence that the accused occupied the driver's seat solely to smoke a cigarette in cold weather after arriving home.

The court also found no realistic risk of danger to ground a conviction based on de facto care or control.

Both charges were dismissed.

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

The accused advanced multiple Charter arguments challenging the lawfulness of the police investigation, including violations of ss.8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found a technical breach of ss.8/9 based on a three-minute unexplained delay in administering the approved screening device demand, but rejected all other Charter arguments.

The court concluded that the breach was minor and did not warrant exclusion of the breath sample evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was found guilty.

The applicant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and exceeding the legal blood-alcohol concentration limit.

He brought Charter applications seeking to exclude evidence derived from roadside conversations with police and breath samples.

The applicant argued his section 7 rights were violated by being compelled to incriminate himself under the Highway Traffic Act, and his section 10(b) rights were violated by improper provision of rights to counsel and steering to duty counsel.

The court found the section 7 application succeeded, excluding all compelled utterances, but the section 10(b) application failed.

The applicant was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, two counts of assault resist arrest, and possession of cocaine following his arrest by Durham Regional Police Service officers.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging excessive use of force by police, including repeated tasering and punching to the face, claiming violations of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court found no Charter breaches, rejected the applicant's evidence of punching as implausible and internally inconsistent, and found the use of tasers was proportional and justified.

The applicant was convicted on the two assault resist arrest counts but acquitted on the impaired care or control and possession charges due to insufficient evidence.

The defendant, aged 19 at the time of the alleged offences, was charged with seven counts of sexual offences against a 13-year-old complainant over a period from April 1 to May 3, 2018.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The defendant was arraigned on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, exposing genital organs, accessing child pornography, and two counts of communicating with a minor to facilitate sexual offences.

The Crown conceded insufficient evidence on two counts.

Following a trial involving videotaped evidence from child witnesses and extensive cross-examination, the court found the defendant guilty on five counts after rejecting his denials based on substantive credibility problems and corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses.

The appellant was convicted in absentia of speeding after intentionally defaulting on her trial date.

She appealed, arguing the certificate of offence was defective because the police officer recorded the municipality as 'out of area'.

The appeal court agreed, finding that 'out of area' was formally incorrect and misleading, meaning the appellant did not have effective notice of the jurisdiction.

The certificate was deemed incomplete and irregular on its face, and the conviction was quashed.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control and exceed 80mgs following a police investigation on his driveway.

The defendant advanced Charter arguments challenging the lawfulness of his detention and arrest.

The court found that the police officer had lawful authority under the Highway Traffic Act and common law to detain the defendant on his driveway to check sobriety, and that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.

The defendant was acquitted of impaired care or control but convicted of exceed 80mgs based on the breath samples.

The defendant was convicted after trial of agreeing with a person to commit sexual interference with a child under 16 years of age via telecommunication, contrary to s.172.2(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The defendant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment minus 48 days pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in approximately 10.4 months imprisonment, followed by a 2-year probation order.

The court rejected the defendant's constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, finding that a fit and proportionate sentence materially exceeded the minimum and rendered the constitutional issues moot.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference involving his distant cousin between the ages of 7 to 9 years old.

The allegations involved two incidents: touching of the complainant's genital area during a family gathering in a bedroom, and touching of the complainant's anus during a piggy-back ride in a lake at a camping trip.

The complainant testified via closed-circuit television at age 15, and her videotaped police statement was admitted.

The accused denied both incidents.

The court found that while the complainant presented as sincere, her evidence suffered from significant reliability problems including inconsistencies regarding material details, problematic circumstances of disclosure to family members prior to police involvement, and concerns with the manner in which the police interview was conducted.

The court found the accused's denials credible and determined the Crown had not discharged its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought to stay proceedings for the offence of making an arrangement with a person to commit a sexual offence under section 172.2(2) of the Criminal Code, alleging entrapment by a police officer.

The applicant argued that the officer randomly tested his virtue without reasonable suspicion and alternatively that the officer induced him to commit the offence by exploiting his vulnerable state.

The court dismissed the application, finding that reasonable suspicion developed during the investigation through legitimate investigative steps, that the officer was engaged in a bona fide inquiry targeting a known hub for online sexual predators, and that there was no inducement or pressure applied to the applicant.

The accused was charged with making an arrangement with a person to commit sexual interference with a child under 16 years of age contrary to section 172.2(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused posted an advertisement on Craigslist seeking a sexual encounter and communicated with an undercover police officer posing as a woman named Sara Kristoff.

The accused arranged to meet the officer and engage in sexual activity with both the officer and her purported 3-year-old daughter.

The accused's defence was that he was engaged in role play and fantasy and never intended to actually commit the offence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as patently incredible and found him guilty based on the explicit communications demonstrating his clear intention to arrange a sexual encounter with the child.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of breaking and entering into dwelling homes contrary to section 348(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender committed a series of break-ins into residential homes over a one-month period, targeting vulnerable victims and stealing property of significant value.

The offender had an extensive criminal history including 12 prior break and enter convictions and was on parole at the time of the offences.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with restitution orders totaling $28,076.54 and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of mischief under $5,000 for defacing transit shelters with anti-Muslim graffiti in the Durham region.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of 4-6 months followed by probation with counselling requirements, emphasizing general deterrence.

The defence sought a conditional sentence with community service and counselling.

The court imposed a 5-month jail sentence followed by 15 months probation, finding that a community-based sentence would not meet the principles of sentencing given the hate-motivated nature of the offence, the defendant's criminal history of breaches, and the need for general deterrence in the community.

The accused brought a pre-trial application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of break and enter and possession of property obtained by crime.

The search warrant was obtained based on evidence that a stolen iPhone from a break and enter had been located near the accused's residence using Apple's "Find my iPhone" application.

The accused argued the warrant was invalid due to stale information and lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court rejected both facial and sub-facial challenges to the warrant, finding that the investigating officer had taken adequate investigative steps to establish reasonable grounds and that the warrant could have been issued by the justice of the peace.

The defendants applied to replace police bail conditions imposed under section 503(2.1) of the Criminal Code with a judicial bail order under section 515.

The defendants were charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and public mischief arising from an altercation with a civilian.

The Crown sought to maintain three contested conditions: residency in Ontario, a curfew from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am, and abstention from alcohol consumption.

The court found that the residency condition was unnecessary to ensure attendance in court, the curfew was punitive and unnecessary given the situational nature of the alleged offence, and the alcohol prohibition lacked evidentiary support and was not necessary to address public safety or confidence in the administration of justice.

The court replaced the police bail with a judicial bail order removing the three contested conditions while maintaining no-contact provisions, weapons prohibitions, and notification requirements.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an alleged incident in a restaurant storage room.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's testimony, which was contradicted by the accused's denial.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies, omissions, and memory failures regarding significant details, including the appearance of the storage room door, the location of the light switch, and the sequence of events.

The accused's evidence was found credible.

The trial judge concluded that the complainant's evidence was too weak to meet the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the accused.