Harval Singh Bassi

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle after rear-ending another tractor trailer, which subsequently collided head-on with a third vehicle, resulting in a fatality.

The parties agreed the accused's driving did not cause the fatality.

The Crown sought a conviction, a $3,000 fine, and a 2-year driving prohibition.

The defence sought an absolute discharge, arguing a conviction would result in the accused's automatic deportation, a disproportionate collateral consequence.

The court granted an absolute discharge, imposing an 8-year driving prohibition and ordering $10,000 in restitution, finding that deportation would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the accused's moral blameworthiness.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking offences, brought pre-trial motions alleging violations of their s. 8 Charter rights.

One accused challenged the warrantless obtaining of his Airbnb booking information and the subsequent warrantless entry into the unit where drugs were found.

The court held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the booking information due to Airbnb's privacy policy, and that exigent circumstances justified both the information request and the entry to secure the drugs.

The other accused challenged a tracking warrant, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was insufficient and misleading.

The court found the ITO provided ample basis for the warrant and was not misleading.

The court further held that even if there were Charter breaches, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The motions were dismissed.

The defendant, Ahmed Noor, was sentenced after being found guilty of unlawful possession of a loaded handgun, unlawful possession of a firearm while prohibited, breaching a prohibition order, and failing to comply with bail.

He had been acquitted of intentionally discharging a firearm on grounds of self-defence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his criminal record for violence and firearm use, the loaded semi-automatic handgun, and the deliberate and prolonged public possession while under house arrest.

Mitigating factors included his admission of the offences, remorse, physical injury sustained during the incident, systemic factors related to anti-Black racism, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The Crown sought a 9-year global sentence, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years, comprising 6.5 years for the firearm offence and 12 months for the breaches, to be served consecutively.

The defendant, Michael Naser Philib Zakhari, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference.

The Crown conceded reasonable doubt on the sexual assault charge.

The core issue for sexual interference was the defence of mistaken belief in age, specifically whether the defendant honestly believed the complainant was 16 or older and took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable regarding impairment and inconsistencies.

Based on the evidence, including that the complainant and her friends actively misrepresented her age as 18, the court found that the defendant honestly believed the complainant was 18 and took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of both charges.

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, Pritpal Singh, was tried for multiple drug trafficking and possession offences alongside a Garofoli application challenging several search warrants.

The court dismissed the majority of the Garofoli application, finding that the accused did not have standing to seek excision of evidence obtained through the breach of a third party's Charter rights, and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) established reasonable grounds for most of the warrants.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Fact, the court found the accused guilty of trafficking heroin, possession of heroin and opium for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, relying on circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of constructive possession.

The co-accused daughter was acquitted at the Crown's request.

The applicant, Jermaine Watson, charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, brought an application to exclude evidence seized by police following his arrest and searches of his person and vehicle, alleging breaches of his Charter rights (ss. 7, 8, 9).

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the warrantless arrest, making the subsequent searches unlawful.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct (arrest without reasonable grounds, public search) and the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits, despite the reliability of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter was granted.

This endorsement addresses the collapse of a scheduled two-day criminal trial due to the defendant's last-minute guilty plea, without prior notice to the court or Crown.

The court highlights this as an example of ongoing case management challenges in high-volume provincial courts, despite new procedures like Trial Confirmation Court.

The decision emphasizes that such occurrences lead to inefficient use of precious trial time, causing delays for other matters, and stresses the shared responsibility of all parties, including counsel, in ensuring the efficient administration of justice.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and being a party to sexual assault.

The central issues were the complainant's consent and capacity to consent.

The court applied the W.D. framework for credibility and considered circumstantial evidence, including the complainant's memory loss and expert testimony on drug/alcohol effects.

The court found that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent or lacked capacity.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Brandon Drakes-Simon and Jason Williams for attempt murder, following their conviction for first-degree murder of the same victim.

The attempt murder involved a planned shooting on a highway.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, possession of multiple illegal guns, Drakes-Simon's prior gun convictions, extreme recklessness endangering others, and a judicial finding that the crime was a contract killing.

Mitigating factors for Williams included his lack of a prior criminal record and strong family support.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 16 years for Drakes-Simon and 11 years for Williams, both running concurrently with their life sentences for first-degree murder.

The applicant, Mohamed Mohamed, sought a stay of proceedings under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 26 months and 12 days.

The defence conceded 3.5 months of delay.

The court found the Crown's failure to disclose the Information to Obtain (ITO) for 17.5 months was the primary cause of delay, as it was integral disclosure necessary for the defence to prepare.

The Crown's request for a blanket 4-month deduction for COVID-19 backlog was denied due to lack of evidentiary support demonstrating a causal link and mitigation efforts.

The net delay of approximately 23 months exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial court matters.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The applicants, charged with trafficking contraband shisha tobacco, brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of multiple general and search warrants.

They argued the warrants were based on insufficient grounds, unreliable confidential informants, and misleading information provided by the affiant.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) for each warrant, applying the Debot criteria to assess the informants' reliability.

The court found that while there were some errors and misleading statements in the ITOs, they were not egregious enough to subvert the process.

After excising the erroneous information, the court concluded that the remaining corroborated evidence provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds for the issuing justices to grant the warrants.

The application to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter was dismissed.

The defendants in a drug and proceeds offence case sought standing to challenge search warrants under the Charter.

The court dismissed the application for standing for all defendants except one (Taylor Brennan, whose charges were later stayed), finding that they failed to prove a sufficient connection to the searched properties to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy on a balance of probabilities.

The decision reiterates that the onus is on the defendant to prove standing and discusses the application of the Edwards factors and the normative vs. categorical approach to Charter standing.

The defendant, H.K., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a person under 16.

The defence argued that a second alleged meeting between the defendant and the complainant, during which the assault purportedly occurred, did not happen.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the second meeting inconsistent and unreliable, particularly concerning the absence of corroborating text messages she claimed existed.

Due to these significant discrepancies, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant of all charges.

The accused were charged with robbery, pointing and discharging a firearm, and in one case, breaching bail conditions, arising from an incident at a bar in Mississauga on October 9, 2019.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the identification evidence of the victim, who gave inconsistent statements to police and at trial.

The court admitted the victim's prior police statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule based on procedural reliability.

However, the court found that the victim's evidence contained significant inconsistencies regarding the timing and circumstances of the alleged shooting, and that video evidence did not support her account.

The court concluded that the victim's evidence could not safely carry the whole weight of the Crown's case and acquitted both accused on all charges.

The defendants, F.I. and E.M., applied for a mistrial after being found guilty of sexual assault by a jury.

The application was based on the jury selection process, which did not allow peremptory challenges, following new procedures implemented on September 19, 2019.

This was argued to be contrary to the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Chouhan, which held that the abolition of peremptory challenges should not apply retrospectively to cases where the accused had a vested right to a trial by judge and jury under prior legislation.

The court dismissed the application, noting that counsel had not objected to the new jury selection process at the time of selection.

The judge adopted reasoning from R. v. Azzi, emphasizing the public interest in finality, the impact on the complainant, and the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada had granted leave to appeal the Chouhan decision, militating against a post-verdict mistrial.

The three accused, charged with conspiracy to import cocaine and breach of trust, brought applications under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude intercepted private communications.

They alleged their s. 8 rights were violated because the police affiant deliberately misled the authorizing judge regarding the investigative plan to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the wiretap.

The court found the affidavit was materially misleading, though not deliberately so, and that without the misleading information, the authorization lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court concluded the wiretap violated s. 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the serious police carelessness and subsequent false testimony by the affiant outweighed society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The accused, charged with drug importation offences, brought a pre-trial Charter application challenging five successive wiretap authorizations.

The Crown objected to his standing to challenge the first authorization, as he was not named and his communications were not intercepted under it.

The court held that the accused lacked standing to challenge the first authorization directly because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

However, the court ruled he had standing to challenge the subsequent authorizations that did intercept his communications, and in doing so, he could seek to excise information from their supporting ITOs that was allegedly obtained in violation of his co-accused's Charter rights under the first authorization.

The defendant was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol under section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, arising from a traffic stop on May 11, 2018.

The sole issue was whether the Crown could rely on the presumption of identity under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code to establish the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.

The defendant challenged the applicability of this presumption following Parliament's December 18, 2018 amendments to the Criminal Code, which substantially revised the driving offence provisions.

The court held that the presumption of identity continues to apply to prosecutions under the former section 253(1)(b) and that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant applied for leave to cross-examine Detective Constable Mike Taylor, the affiant of search warrants that led to the discovery of two firearms in the defendant's home and car.

The defendant sought to question the officer regarding the timing of confidential informant information and the meaning of "operational needs" that resulted in the non-execution of an initial warrant.

The court granted leave to cross-examine on both areas, finding them relevant to whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrants.

However, an addendum clarified that one line of questioning regarding the timing of confidential informant information was ultimately irrelevant to the defendant's actual inquiry.