G. Paul Renwick

The defendant, S.K., facing sexual assault and sexual exploitation charges, brought a second application for the presiding judge to recuse due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The defendant, self-represented, presented evidence including witness testimony and his own perceptions, arguing that the judge had shown bias against him.

The judge, G.P. Renwick, acknowledged several factors contributing to a reasonable apprehension of bias, including a former counsel's comment about the judge's perceived pro-Crown tendency, the judge's failure to adequately explain procedural matters to the self-represented defendant, and the defendant's genuine belief of bias.

The judge granted the application, recusing himself to ensure the appearance of justice and a fair trial.

The prosecutor sought a material witness warrant under s. 705 of the Criminal Code for Niloshan Selvakumanran, also known as Neal Kumar, who failed to attend court despite being subpoenaed.

The defendant opposed, questioning the identity of the witness and the reliability of the evidence.

The court found that the subpoena was properly served, the witness's identity was sufficiently established, and the witness possessed material evidence.

Consequently, the court issued a material witness warrant for the arrest of the witness.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and having an excess blood alcohol concentration.

He challenged the admissibility of breath readings, alleging Charter violations under ss. 8 (unreasonable search) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found the defendant was the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.

While breaches of ss. 8 (untimely breath demand) and 10(b) (delayed access to counsel) were established, the court applied the R. v. Grant test and determined that admitting the breath sample results would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was found guilty of impaired operation.

The defendant, N.R., faced five counts arising from allegations of intimate partner violence, including a death threat, sexual assault, and three counts of breaching a bail order.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies, poor memory, and a history of breaching court orders.

The defendant's video-taped statement to police admitted to maintaining contact and cohabiting with the complainant, contrary to his bail conditions.

Applying principles from R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. Kruk regarding credibility and reliability, the court found N.R. guilty of the three bail breach counts but acquitted him of the death threat and sexual assault charges due to reasonable doubt arising from the complainant's unreliable testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence.

The defendant, Eldan Krcic, faced charges of theft, assault, and assault with a weapon arising from allegations of intimate partner violence.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the defendant, and photographic evidence of injuries.

The court assessed witness credibility and reliability, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

While the complainant's testimony had some credibility issues and the defendant's testimony was largely untruthful, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt due to residual doubts about the complainant's testimony and the unauthenticated nature of the photographic evidence.

All remaining charges were dismissed.

The defendant brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 788 days (25 months and 25 days).

The court deducted 219 days attributable to defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 569 days (18.7 months), which exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials under R. v. Jordan.

The Crown did not justify the delay.

The court found the defendant's s. 11(b) right was breached and stayed the charges.

The offender, Troy Matthews, pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a firearm and possession contrary to a prohibition order.

The firearm and ammunition were found hidden in his home, where his three young children resided.

The prosecution sought a 24-month global sentence, while the offender sought 18 months (net 15 months after credit for pre-trial custody and systemic racism).

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record and unsafe storage of the firearm, and mitigating factors, such as a guilty plea, remorse, strong family support, and the impact of anti-Black racism.

The court granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions and the experience of racism.

A global sentence of 21 months imprisonment was imposed (18 months for firearm possession, 3 months consecutive for breach of prohibition), reduced by 2 months for restraint/totality and 5 months for pre-trial custody/racism, resulting in a net 14-month provincial reformatory sentence.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, a 20-year prohibition for other firearms/ammunition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items.

The Applicant, F.W., facing a sexual assault charge, brought a s. 276 application to introduce "other sexual activity" (OSA) evidence of the complainant, M.M., related to DNA evidence, capacity to consent, and inconsistencies in her statement.

The court, applying the s. 276 regime, balanced the probative value against the prejudice.

The court allowed limited cross-examination of the complainant regarding sexual activity at the nightclub/vicinity on the night of the incident and permitted examination of Crown witness S.R. and the Applicant regarding their sexual activity with the complainant, finding significant probative value for the defence's issues of consent and DNA explanation, which outweighed the prejudice.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his wife.

He admitted to a non-consensual application of force by putting his hand on her mouth to calm her down, which he conceded might have caused bleeding.

The complainant testified that the defendant slapped her, held her on the bed, sat on her, beat her face and head, and grabbed her neck, causing difficulty breathing and possible loss of consciousness.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant, considering inconsistencies and admissions.

The court rejected the defendant's explanation for scratches found on his body, concluding that these injuries were inflicted by the complainant in self-defense while she was being choked.

The defendant was found guilty of assault.

The offender, Shane Springer, was sentenced following a trial where he was found to have caused significant head injuries to the complainant with a bag.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment and 24 months probation, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as aggravating factors (unprovoked attack, weapon use, lack of remorse, ongoing harm to victim) and mitigating factors (first offender, refugee claimant status, community contributions, positive pre-sentence report).

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the severity of the assault and lack of remorse, imposing six months imprisonment and two years probation, noting the potential for deportation.

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, was charged with eight counts including assault, forcible confinement, and sexual assault against the complainant, S.K. The prosecution proceeded by indictment, and the defendant elected a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony, considering circumstantial evidence and the absence of forensic evidence.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be entirely credible, plausible, and unshaken by cross-examination, rejecting the defendant's theories of fabrication.

The defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all eight counts.

The Crown applied under sections 714.1 and 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for the complainant to testify by video link from New Brunswick in a criminal trial involving charges of assault, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing unfairness, diminished solemnity, potential hindrance to cross-examination, and insufficient evidence regarding the complainant's inconvenience or medical issues.

The court considered eight factors from R. v. Young, including the impact on cross-examination, the integrity of the examination site, witness travel distance, convenience, and cost.

The application was dismissed, as the court found that potential issues with cross-examination and the appearance of fairness, coupled with a lack of precise evidentiary basis for the complainant's inconvenience, tipped the balance against granting the order.

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal proceedings for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement.

The total delay was 24 months and 4 days.

The court calculated defence delay, finding 206 days attributable to the defendant, resulting in a net delay of 17.4 months, which is below the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial courts.

The court also found that the defendant failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, thus failing the second branch of the Jordan test for delays below the ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, G.C., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving his then-girlfriend's 15-year-old daughter.

The trial in the Ontario Court of Justice involved conflicting testimony from the complainant and her mother (the defendant's common-law partner).

The court found the complainant credible but had lingering reliability concerns due to inconsistencies and a possible motive for fabrication.

The mother's testimony was largely unbelievable but confirmed an apology from the defendant and an admission of possibly touching the complainant's "bum or something." Despite a strong suspicion of guilt, the court found that the evidence, when considered holistically, left a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The defendant, Aditya Jaswal, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time for an excess blood alcohol concentration charge.

The total post-charge delay was 650 days (21 months and 20 days).

The court analyzed defence delay, including periods of inaction regarding disclosure and late notice of the s. 11(b) concern.

The court deducted 158 days of defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 492 days (16 months and 6 days), which is below the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial courts.

The court found the defendant did not take meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and the case did not take markedly longer than it should have.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Nathaniel Dillon, was charged with two counts of breaching a no-attend term of bail.

The trial involved conflicting testimony from the complainant and the defendant.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, finding the complainant's evidence believable and accurate, while largely rejecting the defendant's testimony due to its performative aspect, flippant manner, and lack of plausibility.

The court found that the defendant intentionally remained in the complainant's presence on two separate occasions despite knowing he was breaching his bail conditions.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.

The defendant was charged with nine criminal offences, including uttering threats, criminal harassment, and breaching bail orders, against his former spouse and her mother.

The court assessed witness credibility and circumstantial evidence, applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty of four counts (contact contrary to a release order, uttering threats to the complainant, criminal harassment, and uttering threats to the complainant's mother) and acquitted of five counts due to insufficient proof of authorship of certain social media messages or lack of evidence regarding specific release orders.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of assault causing bodily harm against the defendant, Shane Springer, arising from an incident on September 20, 2021, involving the complainant, Ricardo Pilgrim.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

The complainant's testimony, detailing significant head injuries caused by the defendant, was accepted as truthful and accurate.

The defendant's testimony, which offered an alternative explanation for the injuries and denied culpability, was rejected as untruthful and unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of plausibility.

The court found no reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt.

This ruling addresses a Garofoli application brought by the defendant, Kingslee Christie, challenging the facial validity of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant.

The defendant argued that the heavily redacted ITO, which protected confidential informer (CI) identities, lacked sufficient evidence to establish reasonable grounds for searching his residence.

The court reviewed the Garofoli six-step procedure, particularly step six, which permits reliance on redacted material through judicial summaries.

The court found that the defendant was able to meaningfully challenge the redacted information and that the CI information met the "credible, compelling, and corroborated" criteria.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the ITO contained sufficient information to establish reasonable grounds for the search warrant, and therefore, the application to quash the warrant was dismissed.

The offender was found guilty of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats against his former intimate partner.

Prior to sentencing, the offender absconded and the sentencing proceeded in his absence.

The court emphasized the gravity of the sexual assault, which involved forced penetration, and the aggravating context of intimate partner violence.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 5 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a no-contact order, and a 20-year SOIRA registration.