Jason Krishna Balgopal

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after punching the complainant multiple times in the face following a slap, rendering the complainant unconscious and causing significant facial injuries.

The trial was re-opened to permit a third-party witness to testify, but her evidence was rejected as neither credible nor reliable due to her intoxicated state.

On summary conviction appeal, the appellant raised three grounds: uneven scrutiny of defence-led evidence, misapprehension of evidence regarding the complainant striking the appellant in the back of the head, and failure to properly apply R. v. W.(D.).

The appeal court found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, no misapprehension of material evidence, and no W.D. error, as the substance of the reasonable doubt instruction was respected throughout the reasons.

Appeal dismissed.

The applicant, a permanent resident from Barbados, sought leave to extend the time to file an appeal of a sentence imposed on July 7, 2021, for breaking and entering offences.

The applicant's motivation was to preserve his right to appeal a deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Division, as sentences of six months or more eliminate this right.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal, failed to adequately explain the delay, and that the appeal had been rendered moot by the applicant's subsequent conviction and nine-month sentence imposed on February 19, 2025.

The appellant, Tony Sfeir, appealed his convictions and sentence for two counts of sexual assault.

The incidents involved deception of two complainants, JR and BG, who believed they were engaging in sexual activity with a woman, but were in fact deceived by the appellant.

The appeal alleged errors in the trial judge’s credibility analysis, application of the burden of proof, and sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge’s reasoning or application of the law.

Baldeep Singh Aujla appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider the complainant's motive to fabricate, mischaracterizing surveillance video as 'corroborative,' and reversing the burden of proof regarding the complainant's testimony details.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately considered the motive to fabricate, used 'corroborative' in an informal sense, and did not reverse the burden of proof, as the conviction was primarily based on video evidence confirming the complainant's account.

The accused, a former teacher, was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference against a former student, M.L., who was 15 at the time of the offence.

The sexual assault count was stayed under the Kienapple principle, and the court proceeded to sentence the accused on the sexual interference count.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the victim's age, the significant impact on the victim, and the grooming behaviour by the accused.

Mitigating factors included the accused's first-offender status and strong community support.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and noting that conditional sentences are rarely appropriate for sexual offences against children, the court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, communication prohibition, and sex offender registry placement.