Harlene Bajwa

The accused was tried on multiple charges including sexual assault, assault by choking, assault with a weapon, mischief, and uttering death threats against his wife.

The charges arose from a five-day period shortly after the complainant arrived in Canada from India.

The court applied the W(D) framework to assess the conflicting testimony of the complainant and the accused.

Finding inconsistencies and difficulties in the evidence of both parties, the court concluded it could not reject the accused's testimony.

As the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, all charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 after losing control of his vehicle and colliding with a parked truck.

The defendant brought Charter motions under sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b), arguing his blood sample was unlawfully seized at the hospital while he was unconscious.

The court dismissed the Charter motions, finding the blood was drawn for routine medical care and lawfully seized pursuant to a warrant.

The court found the defendant guilty on all charges, relying on the presence of a rum bottle, an admission of alcohol consumption to paramedics, the collision itself, and toxicology results showing a blood alcohol level of 186.

The offender was found guilty of the brutal sexual assault and assault of a vulnerable woman, as well as assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief against a good Samaritan who intervened.

The offender, a first-time offender with schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder, violently attacked the woman in an alleyway and subsequently chased and assaulted the intervening bystander.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the extreme violence and callousness of the attack.

The offender was sentenced to a global penitentiary term of 8 years, comprising 7 years for the offences against the woman and 1 year consecutive for the offences against the bystander, less pre-sentence custody credit.

In a pre-trial motion on sexual assault and forcible confinement charges involving two complainants, the Crown sought admission of cross-count similar fact evidence and the defence sought severance.

Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court held that the allegations disclosed a distinctive pattern of opportunistic isolation and sexual assault that made coincidence objectively improbable.

The court found the evidence relevant to identity, consent, actus reus, and mens rea, with reduced prejudice concerns in a judge-alone trial.

The Crown's motion was allowed, the severance motion was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed as one trial.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed all trafficking and conspiracy charges against Arvin Esguerra Cruz, finding the Crown's case rested primarily on his presence at the scene of drug transactions without direct evidence of participation.

Despite surveillance and circumstantial evidence linking Cruz to the vicinity of two drug transactions on July 26 and September 5, 2023, the court held that mere presence and timing were insufficient to infer guilt beyond speculation.

The Crown failed to establish that Cruz aided, abetted, or conspired in the offences, and no evidence linked him to the drugs, communications, or planning.

The decision underscores the evidentiary threshold required to move beyond "mere presence" in drug trafficking prosecutions.

This sentencing decision addresses an offender's guilty pleas to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a prohibited device while prohibited.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the large quantity of cocaine, the offender being on house arrest bail at the time of the offences, and a prior criminal record for similar narcotics offences.

Mitigating factors included early guilty pleas, the offender's long-standing addiction issues stemming from a difficult childhood and family history of addiction, and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation through program completion and good conduct in custody.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a total sentence of 45 months in custody, concurrent sentences for the two charges, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court also ordered forfeiture of a cell phone but strongly recommended police preserve personal photos for the offender.

The accused was charged with assaulting three of his young children with a belt and a wire/cable, assault causing bodily harm, and forcible confinement.

The charges arose amidst a highly acrimonious custody dispute with the children's mother.

The defence sought to introduce the children's prior statements from an unrelated, unfounded sexual assault investigation to argue they were prone to collusion and influence.

The court admitted the statements but gave them little weight.

Relying on the children's video-recorded police statements, their trial testimony, and corroborating medical evidence of patterned injuries, the court found the accused guilty of the assault charges.

The court acquitted the accused of forcible confinement due to reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the child's delayed disclosure.

This ruling addresses the scope of preliminary inquiries following the amendments introduced by Bill C-75 to the Criminal Code.

The defendants, jointly charged with numerous counts, including offences punishable by 14 years' imprisonment or more and those punishable by less, sought a preliminary inquiry for all charges.

The Crown argued that preliminary inquiry jurisdiction is now limited to offences carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years or more.

The court, aligning with previous decisions in R. v. Davis and R. v. M.R., held that preliminary inquiries are restricted to charges attracting a potential sentence of 14 years' imprisonment or more, even when grouped with less serious charges arising from the same transaction.

The court clarified that while questions about less serious charges might be permitted if closely linked to the serious ones, the court lacks jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary inquiry or order a discharge for offences punishable by less than 14 years.