Kirandeep Kaur Grewal

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, following the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, as the accused was found alone in a restricted room containing a drug processing station, hidden drugs, and cash.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

The defendant, Tyler Willan, was charged with arson as an aider under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, for assisting in the burning of a Honda Accord used in a murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including video chronology of the Honda and Willan's Outlander, the purchase of gas in a Jerry Can, and the movements of the alleged perpetrators (Male 1 and Male 2).

The court found that Male 1 and Male 2 committed arson by intentionally burning the Honda, which was not wholly owned by them, to destroy evidence related to a murder.

The court concluded that Willan aided the arson by driving Male 1 and Male 2 from the burn site back to Oshawa, having known about the Jerry Can and the purpose of the trip.

Willan was found guilty.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied two treatment plans for a neurocognitive assessment and a psychological assessment, arguing they were duplicative and subject to the $2,000 statutory cap for a single assessment under s. 25(5)(a) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the two assessments, although contained within the same report, were distinct, stand-alone evaluations addressing separate cognitive and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the outstanding $2,200.00 for the assessments, plus interest.

The accused was tried for the second-degree murder of his mother.

The court previously found that the accused committed the act that caused her death.

The Crown sought to prove that the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

Based on uncontested expert psychiatric evidence, the court found that the accused suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and was experiencing Capgras delusions and command hallucinations at the time of the offence.

The court concluded that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong, and found him not criminally responsible.

The accused was charged with the second-degree murder of his mother.

The Crown and defence agreed to proceed by way of admissions for much of the evidence.

The court first had to determine whether the accused committed the actus reus of the offence before considering a potential defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

Based on overwhelming forensic, DNA, and circumstantial evidence, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of the victim by inflicting multiple sharp force injuries.

Ganesh Persaud pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of his estranged wife, Bodwatie Persaud, who he brutally murdered due to jealous suspicions.

Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 12 years.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding the increased parole ineligibility period warranted given the brutal nature of the domestic murder, breach of trust, and aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's age, health, lack of criminal record, and early guilty plea.

The defendant was found guilty of two counts of possessing a Schedule I substance for the purposes of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: one count for fentanyl and one count for heroin.

Both convictions arose from a single criminal act involving possession of a brown substance containing a mixture of heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine.

The Crown conceded that the Kienapple principle applied, requiring that only one conviction be registered.

The court determined that the heroin conviction should proceed and the fentanyl conviction should be conditionally stayed, as the defendant's moral culpability was fully reflected in the heroin conviction, which matched his actual knowledge and intent.