Gursharn Kaur Gill

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against his intimate partner.

Over a period of months, the accused engaged in a pattern of coercive control and physical violence, culminating in an assault that left the victim permanently blind in one eye and another assault that caused a miscarriage.

The Crown sought a 5-6 year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for intimate partner violence, while acknowledging the accused's guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and excellent rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a 4.5-year penitentiary sentence.

The defendant, Clyde Williams, was convicted of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust (as a Senior Pastor), grooming, victim vulnerability (minor and employee), duration and repetition of offences, and the profound harm caused to the victims (M.M. and D.D.).

Mitigating factors included his unblemished record and potential for rehabilitation, though tempered by his lack of remorse and denial of culpability.

The court applied sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and totality, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, with specific terms for each offence.

Ashir Mahmood was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting C.A. The court, in its sentencing reasons, made a finding of penetration for sentencing purposes under section 724(2) of the Criminal Code.

Aggravating factors included the brazen nature of the assault on a sleeping victim, the lack of condom use causing additional trauma, and a breach of trust.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, the offender's relative youth at the time of the offence, family support, and a significant pre-sentence delay of almost five years.

The court noted the offender's substance abuse and mental health issues but found they did not diminish responsibility for the offence.

The judge imposed a sentence of three years incarceration, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, and made strong recommendations for mental health and addiction treatment during custody.

A.G. was found guilty of five criminal charges, including assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement against D.H. The court considered aggravating factors such as intimate partner violence, breach of trust, and the severe impact on the victim, balanced against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, first-offender status, and significant delay in sentencing.

The Crown sought 7 years, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years for the September 2017 offences and two months consecutive for an August 2017 assault, totaling five years and two months, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence due to the seriousness of the crimes.

Criminal trial arising from allegations that a church pastor assaulted one complainant in a parking lot, sexually assaulted another adult congregant over several years, sexually exploited a younger congregant while she was 16 and 17, and sexually assaulted her by digital penetration on her 18th birthday.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, rejected the accused’s evidence as disingenuous and unreliable, and accepted the complainants’ evidence in its material respects, including evidence of spiritual manipulation, grooming, controlling communications, and admissions made during a recorded confrontation.

The court held that implied consent had no application to a purported deliverance-based physical restraint, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainants did not consent and that the accused knew of their non-consent.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts.

The accused, A.G., was charged with five counts including assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and sexual assault.

The trial involved a "she said, he said" scenario, with the Crown relying on the complainant's testimony bolstered by four pieces of independent confirmatory evidence: a text message apology for a bite, a hole in the wall, surveillance video, and extensive bruising on the complainant's body.

The defence argued self-defence and challenged the complainant's credibility.

The court found the defendant's explanations implausible and the confirmatory evidence substantial, leading to a finding of guilt on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was sitting in a parked car when police blocked his vehicle and detained him.

After discovering loose cannabis and an outstanding committal warrant, police delayed advising the accused of the reasons for his detention and his right to counsel for nearly 30 minutes while they investigated the warrant, deliberately misleading him to maintain his compliance.

A subsequent search of the vehicle yielded a firearm.

The court found violations of sections 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Although the search itself was lawful under the Cannabis Control Act, the court excluded the firearm under section 24(2) due to the serious, deliberate, and reckless nature of the police conduct in suspending the accused's rights.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following a party where the complainant consumed a significant amount of alcohol.

The complainant alleged she woke up to a sharp pain and briefly saw the accused at her feet before passing out again.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her extreme intoxication, the dark room, and the brief duration of her observation.

The court also found her credibility compromised by prior inconsistent statements regarding text messages about a threesome and her account of her hospital visit.

The accused was acquitted as the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant was charged with failing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code following a single-vehicle collision.

At trial, the applicant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant was unlawfully handcuffed during the breath demand without reasonable justification for officer safety.

The handcuffing was found to be arbitrary and the breath sample demand was conducted in an unreasonable manner.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court excluded the evidence and dismissed the charge.