Harutyun Apel

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault committed on September 20, 2015, at a bar in Burlington.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including bleeding on the brain, a ruptured right eye, and a detached lens, resulting in permanent loss of sight in one eye.

The court imposed a sentence of 90 days intermittent custody and three years probation, balancing the serious nature of the offence and devastating injuries against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

The defendant, an animal rights activist, was charged with mischief to property under section 430(1)(c) of the Criminal Code for giving water to pigs in a transport truck stopped at a traffic light in Burlington, Ontario.

The Crown alleged she gave an unknown substance that created a risk the slaughterhouse would refuse the load.

The court found the defendant gave water, not a contaminant, and that her actions did not obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.

The court also found no evidence of willfulness.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor (JH), sexual interference with a minor (BM), and invitation to sexual touching of a minor (MV).

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing considered the serious nature of the offences, including grooming behaviour, breach of trust, multiple victims, and significant harm to the victims, balanced against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of prior record, and potential for rehabilitation through treatment programs.

Tristen Mignot brought an application to exclude evidence (gun, ammunition, and drugs) obtained during a search, alleging violations of his s. 8 Charter rights due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds for the search warrant and improper execution.

The court found that the Information to Obtain a Warrant (ITO) contained significant errors and omissions, failing to establish reasonable grounds for the search of the residence at 1 Celestial Crescent.

Consequently, a s. 8 Charter violation occurred.

While the execution of the warrant itself was deemed reasonable, the court balanced the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct against the impact on the accused's privacy interests and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court concluded that the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute by admitting the evidence, thus excluding it.

The offender was convicted of defrauding the victim of $200,000.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, restitution, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The offender argued that his prior convictions, which were entered after the commission of the current offence, could not be considered as aggravating factors under the 'Coke rule'.

The court rejected this argument, finding the prior convictions demonstrated a pattern of behaviour.

The offender was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, ordered to pay $200,000 in restitution, and ordered to pay a $200,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defendant was charged with racing a motor vehicle on a highway contrary to section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, specifically for outdistancing or attempting to outdistance another vehicle while driving at a marked departure from the lawful speed limit.

The Crown's evidence, provided by a police constable, alleged the defendant was driving in the northbound lane at 110-120 km/h beside another vehicle.

The defendant testified he remained in the southbound lane at approximately 60 km/h, attempting to pass a stopped vehicle.

The court found the defendant's evidence credible and, when considered in context with all evidence, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he was outdistancing another vehicle or driving at a marked departure from the lawful speed.

The defendant was acquitted of racing but convicted of the included offence of speeding.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft under s. 322 of the Criminal Code, having misappropriated $14,200 from her elderly mother's bank account while acting as power of attorney.

The victim, an 83-year-old widow suffering from dementia, was residing in long-term care.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of one year to be served in the community, followed by three years of probation.

The sentence emphasized the aggravating factor of breach of trust and the vulnerability of the victim, while considering the accused's age, lack of prior criminal record, and character references.

The accused was tried for defrauding the victim of over $5,000.

The victim sought a $3.2 million loan to purchase shares in an insurance brokerage.

The accused provided a 'loan agreement' and extracted $180,000 in upfront fees from the victim, despite knowing the victim had no collateral and having no intention or ability to provide the loan.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court rejected the accused's testimony that the document was merely a preliminary term sheet.

The court found the accused guilty of fraud over $5,000.

The appellant appealed convictions for three counts of sexual assault arising from incidents involving a workplace employee with a learning disability.

He argued the trial judge erred by permitting the complainant to testify by CCTV while also admitting her videotaped police statement, misapplying the law of consent and mistaken belief in consent, improperly reconsidering a SOIRA registration order after sentencing, and upholding the constitutionality of lifetime registration under s. 490.013(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the trial judge properly admitted both CCTV testimony and the videotaped statement under ss. 486.2 and 715.2, and that the findings of lack of consent and rejection of mistaken belief in consent were supported by the evidence.

Although the trial judge erred in reconsidering the SOIRA order after sentencing, the corrected lifetime registration remained appropriate.

The constitutional challenge to the SOIRA lifetime registration provision under s. 7 of the Charter was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of assault against his wife and daughter, and brought an application to adduce fresh evidence consisting of bank records and travel documents.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding the evidence was not relevant to a decisive issue, could not reasonably be expected to affect the result, and could have been adduced at trial with due diligence.

On the conviction appeal, the court rejected the appellant's arguments that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, applied uneven scrutiny to credibility, or failed to properly apply the W.(D.) principles.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants were charged with dangerous driving on April 14, 2013, and brought a motion to stay the proceedings for unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The information was sworn on May 9, 2013, with the first trial date set for May 30, 2014 (over one year later).

An adjournment was granted on April 11, 2014, because a Crown witness needed to be in England.

The second trial date was set for November 28, 2014.

However, on the trial date, the Crown advised that it would not be calling the witness whose unavailability had prompted the adjournment.

The court found that the delay exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8-10 months for provincial courts and that the adjournment was unnecessary.

The charges were stayed.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault and breach of probation arising from an incident in which he briefly touched a young complainant’s wrist while speaking with two elementary school students outside a school.

Because the complainants were under 18, counsel had been appointed under s. 486.3(1) of the Criminal Code to conduct cross-examination on behalf of the self-represented accused.

The appellant argued that the appointed counsel failed to pursue a critical defence theory that the complainants fabricated the allegation to avoid trouble with their parents for speaking with a stranger.

The court held that counsel appointed under s. 486.3 must pursue relevant and proper lines of inquiry requested by the accused, even if counsel might otherwise decline on tactical grounds.

The failure to pursue the proposed line of cross-examination deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

Rather than ordering a new trial, the court substituted findings of guilt but replaced the sentence with a conditional discharge and probation already completed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous driving under s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, arguing that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient and improperly conflated the actus reus and mens rea requirements.

The court reviewed the trial reasons in the context of the submissions made and concluded that the trial judge had adequately addressed both elements of the offence, even though the analysis was not clearly demarcated.

The court held that the trial judge’s findings established the actus reus and separately explained why the driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care required to establish mens rea.

The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to resolve an alleged inconsistency regarding whether a civilian witness observed the police vehicle with lights and siren activated.

The court found the discrepancy immaterial and not necessary to resolve for the purposes of determining guilt.

The accused were charged with multiple offences following the theft of two motor vehicles and a subsequent police apprehension where officers fired approximately 60 shots at the vehicles.

The accused argued for a stay of proceedings, alleging their Charter rights were violated due to racial profiling and excessive use of force by the police.

The court found no evidence of racial profiling and concluded the police force, while perhaps objectively excessive in hindsight, was a reactive response to a perceived threat to their lives, thus not violating section 7 of the Charter.

The court acquitted the accused of assault with a weapon and attempted murder, finding the Crown failed to prove intent to strike the officers, but convicted the accused of dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and theft-related charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and impaired operation of a motor vehicle after driving eastbound in the westbound lanes of Highway 407 while heavily impaired by alcohol, causing multiple drivers to take evasive action to avoid head-on collisions.

The accused, a Fire Chief with no criminal record, had blood alcohol readings of 225 and 209 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown sought 14-30 days jail, a two-year driving prohibition, and 12 months probation.

The defence sought a non-custodial sentence with fines, community service, and an 18-month driving prohibition.

The court imposed fines totalling $4,025 (including victim surcharge), an 18-month driving prohibition, 18 months probation with alcohol counselling and abstinence conditions, and 100 hours community service.

The accused was charged with two counts of fraud under $5,000 for fraudulently obtaining an amplifier and a computer from Long & McQuade using fraudulent cheques.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The accused claimed his brother committed the offences, but evidence established no such brother existed.

The Crown proved identity through identification documents provided at the time of purchase, cheque signatures matching the accused's driver's licence signatures, video surveillance matching the accused's driver's licence photograph, and testimony from neighbours who had never seen a brother.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The offender was convicted of three counts of sexual assault against a vulnerable employee with a learning disability at his workplace.

The offender, aged 60 at the time of the offences, sexually assaulted the victim on a single day in December 2011.

The victim, who functioned at the level of a 12 or 13-year-old and had been placed with the offender through a supported employment program, suffered significant trauma.

The offender demonstrated no insight into his conduct, claiming curiosity and believing the victim was consenting.

The court imposed a 90-day concurrent jail sentence (to be served intermittently if requested), 2-year probation with strict conditions including no contact and counselling requirements, a 10-year SOIRA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and ordered a DNA sample.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and multiple counts of breaching probation orders.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all counts.

The trial focused on whether the accused's driving on the Skyway Bridge on Canada Day constituted dangerous driving.

A police officer testified that the accused executed repeated aggressive lane changes at speeds of 80-110 km/h on a congested multi-lane highway, causing other drivers to brake heavily and take evasive action.

The accused denied making any lane changes on the bridge.

The court accepted the officer's evidence and found the accused guilty, applying the marked departure test established in R. v. Beatty and R. v. Hundal.

The accused was charged with impaired operation, operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg/100 mL, and breach of recognizance prohibiting him from operating a motor vehicle.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging that police violated ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter by querying the vehicle’s licence plate and subsequently detaining the accused.

The court held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a licence plate or in information obtained from a police database regarding vehicle ownership and bail conditions.

The Charter application was dismissed.

Based on police observations of impairment and breath test results of 150 mg/100 mL, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation, over 80 operation, and breach of recognizance.

Sentencing decision for fraud over $5,000 involving a $200,000 investment fraud against a close friend.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly where the offender exploited a personal relationship and failed to show remorse or make restitution.

A conditional sentence was rejected as inappropriate given the magnitude of the fraud and lack of mitigating factors.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, probation, and a restitution order, but declined the Crown’s request for a fine in lieu of forfeiture intended to compel payment of restitution.