Hafeez S. Amarshi

This ruling addresses a pre-trial application by the accused, Sanveer Singh, challenging a search warrant under section 8 of the Charter.

The warrant relied on a confidential informant, leading to significant redactions in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The Crown conceded the initial redacted ITO was unsupportable.

The court reviewed and revised the judicial summary multiple times to ensure the defence had sufficient information to challenge the warrant while protecting informant privilege.

The court ultimately found the judicial summary adequate, noting that the defence could make arguments on a hypothetical basis regarding redacted details, such as the informant's knowledge or criminal record, to ensure full answer and defence.

Sean Osborne, a police officer, pleaded guilty to assault committed while on duty.

The assault involved stepping on a restrained young person's head/neck area and twice kicking him in the chest after arrest.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the Defence sought a discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting that police officers are held to a higher standard due to their position of trust.

Despite significant mitigating factors, including PTSD and extensive community contributions, the court found that a discharge would be contrary to public interest.

A conviction was deemed necessary to convey the seriousness of the offence and breach of public trust.

The court imposed a suspended sentence and 12 months probation with statutory terms.

The accused was charged with five offences: assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and three counts of uttering threats to cause death to his spouse and two children, all occurring between January 2017 and December 2018.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony that she was assaulted and confined by the accused following a financial dispute, resulting in a fractured clavicle and facial injuries.

The accused claimed the complainant fell down the stairs.

The court found the complainant credible and her evidence corroborated by independent witnesses.

The accused's testimony was found to be internally contradictory and implausible.

The court convicted on counts 1 and 2 (assault and unlawful confinement) but dismissed counts 3, 4, and 5 (threatening death) due to insufficient detail in the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device contrary to section 78.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The primary issue was whether the appellant, who was operating a motorcycle and stopped at a red light when observed holding a cell phone, was "driving" within the meaning of the statute.

The appellant also argued there was insufficient evidence because the officer conceded the device could have been a GPS unit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court held that the prohibition applies continuously from the time a vehicle is put in motion until it is parked in a position where it can be left unattended, including periods when stopped at red lights.

The distinction between motorcycles and automobiles was found to be immaterial.

A youth was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The Crown and defence agreed that sexual intercourse occurred between the accused and the complainant, both aged 17 at the time.

The sole issue was whether the sexual activity was consensual.

The complainant testified that she did not consent and that the accused forced her into sexual activity despite her verbal and physical resistance.

The accused testified that the sexual activity was consensual and that he obtained the complainant's permission.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with robbery of a cell phone store.

Following arrest, the accused initially declined counsel but later requested to speak with a specific criminal lawyer.

Police made inadequate efforts to contact the lawyer, providing the accused with erroneous information about the lawyer's availability.

The accused then waived his right to counsel without receiving a meaningful Prosper warning.

The court found a serious breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights and excluded the inculpatory statement under section 24(2) of the Charter.

A youth was charged with two counts of sexual assault and unlawful confinement arising from incidents on April 25 and June 2, 2017.

The Crown withdrew the charges related to the June 2 incident at the mid-trial stage.

The trial proceeded on the April 25 sexual assault allegation.

The complainant testified that the accused sexually assaulted her in a park by forcing vaginal intercourse against her will.

The accused denied the assault occurred.

The court found the complainant's credibility undermined by surveillance video evidence and inconsistencies in her testimony, and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault alleged to have occurred on an Air Canada flight from Toronto to New Delhi on October 28, 2016.

The complainant testified that while she was sleeping, the accused placed her hand on his erect penis.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the complainant had fallen asleep with her head on his shoulder.

The trial judge found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly when compared to the testimony of the Air Canada Service Director.

While the judge believed something occurred on the flight, the reliability of the complainant's evidence was undermined by multiple inconsistencies regarding the timing of the incident, how the flight attendant became aware of the complaint, and the nature of the touching.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.