Herbert Alexander Patrick Little

Mohamed Ali was found guilty of sexually assaulting LSM.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The Crown sought 2-3 years imprisonment and ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, no-contact order).

Defence sought a 6-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a two-year term of imprisonment, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate and that nothing short of a penitentiary sentence would be suitable given the gravity of the offence and its significant impact on the victim.

The court also imposed all ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault against Mohamed Ali, who was accused of non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the complainant, LSM.

The accused denied vaginal intercourse, claiming other sexual touching was consensual.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D) to assess the conflicting evidence.

The accused's testimony was found to be inconsistent and not credible, particularly regarding his statements about ejaculation and his responses to the complainant's accusations.

The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and corroborated by forensic evidence (presence of the accused's semen in her vagina) and the accused's post-incident text messages.

The court rejected defence arguments based on "rape myths" concerning the complainant's behaviour and found that a breach of the Browne v. Dunn rule by defence counsel did not affect the outcome.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

Four young men were charged with sexual assault and group sexual assault following an incident in which a highly intoxicated eighteen-year-old woman was driven in a car and engaged in sexual contact with three of the four defendants.

The Crown alleged the complainant was incapable of consenting due to extreme intoxication.

The defendants argued the sexual contact was consensual.

The court acquitted all defendants, finding that while the Crown's evidence was more compelling than the defence evidence, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant lacked capacity to consent, that she did not subjectively consent, or that the defendants did not honestly believe in consent.

The judgment emphasizes the high burden of proof in criminal trials and the particular challenges in sexual assault cases involving intoxicated parties.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's Funeral Director Class 1 licence and refuse a corporate application for a Funeral Establishment Operator Class 2 licence.

The proposals stemmed from an incident where the appellant transferred an infant's remains from a hospital morgue to a crematorium in a re-purposed cardboard box, and allegations of improper pacemaker removal without protective equipment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's conduct fell significantly below professional standards, demonstrating incompetence and unprofessional conduct.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out both proposals, concluding the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The accused was charged with four indictable offences: sexual assault, sexual interference, inviting a child to sexually touch the accused, and threatening death.

The complainant, a child, testified that the accused, his uncle, sexually assaulted him repeatedly over approximately 18 months while the child was between 7 and 8 years old.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and rejected the accused's denials as internally and externally inconsistent.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, emphasizing the compelling nature of the child's evidence and the accused's implausible testimony regarding constant supervision and an open bedroom door.

The Applicant, a casino employee, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming after being criminally charged with assault and breach of recognizance relating to a domestic dispute with a co-worker.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the workplace harassment complaint against the Applicant was groundless and that he did not pose a threat to public safety or the integrity of the gaming industry.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to set aside the suspension and attached conditions to the Applicant's registration pending the outcome of the criminal charges.