Jeffrey David Berman

A youthful first offender appealed a sentence of seven and one-half years (reduced from ten years on account of pre-sentence custody) imposed for incest, sexual assault, and making, possessing and distributing child pornography involving his four-year-old daughter.

The appellant sought a reduction to four and one-half years and sought to set aside the victim surcharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits but allowed it in part by setting aside the victim surcharge under R. v. Boudreault.

Talel Khan was charged with possession of fentanyl for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The trial involved applications regarding the voluntariness of Khan's statement to police and alleged breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter rights (right to counsel).

The court found Khan's statement voluntary but his s. 10(b) rights were violated due to delayed access to counsel and police eliciting a statement after he requested a lawyer.

The elicited statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, but physical evidence (fentanyl, scale, money) was admitted.

Ultimately, the court found the Crown failed to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as a reasonable alternative inference was that Khan's common-law spouse was in sole possession.

Khan was found not guilty on both counts.

The accused, charged with sexual offences, sought access to psychiatric reports about the complainant, which were unsealed exhibits in earlier, unrelated criminal proceedings.

The Ontario Court of Justice denied access, requiring a production application under s. 278.3(1) of the Criminal Code, finding the complainant retained a privacy interest.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash this order.

The Superior Court found that the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the reports, given they were discussed in open court and filed as unsealed exhibits.

The court held that the Dagenais/Mentuck standard for access to court records applied, not the s. 278.1 regime, and granted the certiorari application, ordering the release of the reports to the accused.

The accused were tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, and assault arising from alleged abuse of a child over several years within a family setting.

The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant and corroborative aspects of a sibling’s evidence, while the defence emphasized inconsistencies between witness accounts and prior statements.

The court accepted that the complainant was generally credible but identified material inconsistencies regarding key events, timing, and corroborating circumstances.

In the absence of forensic or independent third‑party evidence, these inconsistencies created a reasonable doubt.

The accused were acquitted on all counts.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by rejecting a joint submission without adjourning the matter to allow the Crown who negotiated the resolution to attend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation on the trial judge to adjourn the case on his own motion, and agreeing that the joint submission was inappropriate and would have brought the administration of justice into disrepute.