Harmehak K. Somal

The accused was charged with multiple counts including theft of mail, damage to a Canada Post mailbox, possession of tools for break and enter, possession of someone else's driver's license, and assault on a police officer.

The Crown proceeded on seven counts.

The trial involved six Crown witnesses, including two civilians and four police officers.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed any of the offences, primarily due to inadequate identification evidence.

The only identification of the accused at the scene came from an officer who pointed to the accused in court 3.5 years after the incident, without providing any description of the person arrested or establishing continuity of custody.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The alleged incidents occurred in the complainant's grandfather's basement where the accused resided.

The court heard evidence from the complainant, his mother, his grandfather, and the accused.

The judge applied principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, including the W.(D.) framework and cautions against sexual offence myths.

While the accused's testimony was found to be incredible, and inconsistencies were noted in the complainant's and his family's evidence, the court ultimately found that the Crown had not proven the essential elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, Phillip Bui, pleaded guilty to Robbery and Aggravated Assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of weapons and multiple aggressors, and mitigating factors, such as his youth, first-offender status, guilty plea, and remorse.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence for such serious offences, particularly given the active role in stabbing a victim during a robbery.

The court sentenced the accused to 15 months' incarceration concurrent on each offence, followed by 18 months of probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The Crown appealed a lower court's decision to stay proceedings against the respondent for unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had stayed the proceedings after a mid-trial family emergency caused an adjournment, attributing the subsequent delay to the Crown's failure to consent to a "mistrial" or continuation before another judge.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge erred in law by misattributing the delay, as the judge's emergency was an exceptional circumstance, and neither striking a "not guilty" plea nor continuing the trial before a new judge was a legally available option once evidence had been heard.

The court emphasized that an adjournment was the only permissible remedy.

The appeal was granted, and a new trial is ordered.