Jessica Grbevski

The accused was charged with sexual assault against the complainant on November 25, 2023.

The Crown alleged that the accused forcibly sexually assaulted the complainant in a bathroom at the residence of a third party.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed the assault did not occur.

The trial proceeded on the basis of credibility assessments and circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence, witness testimony regarding the complainant's immediate post-assault demeanor, and the accused's suspicious conduct and flight from the scene.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's testimony as internally and externally inconsistent, and found that the Crown proved all essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Jacob Yoell to 12 months imprisonment concurrent on two counts of robbery and aggravated assault, followed by two years probation with specific conditions including no contact with victims and a weapons prohibition.

The offences involved violent, racially motivated attacks on two homeless Black men in Windsor, captured on video and widely disseminated on social media.

The Court emphasized the aggravating factors of racial bias, victim vulnerability, and the offender’s leadership role in the assaults, while also considering mitigating factors such as the offender’s remorse, guilty plea, youth, lack of prior record, and positive changes since the offences.

The Court rejected a conditional sentence due to the gravity and nature of the offences, despite the offender’s rehabilitative prospects.

The offender, D.N., was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 6-8 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by probation.

The court considered the offender's significant intellectual disability as a mitigating factor, noting that incarceration would be disproportionately difficult and dangerous for him.

Despite the seriousness of the offences and the vulnerability of the victim, the court found that a departure from the typical sentencing range for sexual assault (3-5 years penitentiary) was warranted due to the offender's unique circumstances.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation, along with mandatory orders such as a weapons prohibition, DNA sample, SOIRA registration, and victim surcharges.

Mohamed Ahmed Abdirahman was charged with importation and possession for the purpose of trafficking of 196.7 kg of methamphetamine, found in his commercial truck cab at the Ambassador Bridge border crossing.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused's knowledge of the drugs.

The court found the circumstantial evidence, including the drug's quantity, value, location, a strong chemical odor, and the use of matching duct tape found in the cab, to be overwhelming.

The defence's alternative theories were dismissed as speculative.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant, D.N., brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.

The total delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that periods of defence delay and exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, and unforeseen trial length due to the victim's unique testimony method, should be deducted.

The court agreed with the Crown, finding that after deducting these periods, the net delay fell below the Jordan threshold.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant, a caregiver, was charged with theft and forgery related to an elderly veteran's finances and a vehicle purchase.

The Crown alleged a pattern of ATM withdrawals from the complainant's account matching deposits into the defendant's, and a falsified vehicle purchase agreement.

The court found the defendant guilty of theft for a specific withdrawal made on the day the complainant died, as posthumous consent was impossible.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding consent for prior withdrawals.

For the forgery charge, the court found the incorrect address on the vehicle contract was not a "material particular" and that the Crown failed to prove intent to induce action, leading to an acquittal on that count.