Jannat Gardezi

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death following a motor vehicle collision.

At a blended voir dire, the accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a statement he made to a police officer at the scene, alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the accused was questioned as a witness, not a suspect, and was not psychologically detained when he provided the statement.

The statement was also found to be voluntary.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

He argued that the trial judge erred in her analysis of whether he had language deficits that interfered with his understanding of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the objective test to the arresting officer's observations and reasonably relied on video evidence to conclude the appellant understood his rights.

The trial judge's negative credibility findings regarding the appellant's testimony on his language comprehension were fatal to his claim.

Following a contested trial, the offender was sentenced for sexual interference arising from repeated sexual touching of a 13-year-old complainant by a trusted family friend.

The court stayed the sexual assault count under the Kienapple principle and rejected the defence request for a conditional sentence or intermittent custody.

Applying the governing sentencing principles, including the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in child sexual offences, the court held that the mitigating factors and immigration consequences did not amount to exceptional circumstances.

A custodial sentence of 12 months, followed by 2 years' probation and multiple ancillary orders, was imposed.