Kostas Stratos

The defendant, C.A., was charged with criminal harassment for watching or besetting the residence of T.K., the mother of his son, causing her to reasonably fear for her safety.

A related charge for breaching a probation order was acquitted.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the child witness, J.A., finding his testimony consistent and logical despite minor inconsistencies.

Applying the definition of "besetting" from R. v. Dapena-Huerta, the court found that C.A.'s conduct of returning to T.K.'s residential area, seeking out their son, and making statements indicating knowledge of their residence and T.K.'s habits, constituted besetting.

Considering C.A.'s history of violence against T.K., the court concluded that the Crown proved criminal harassment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Fahmi Osman, applied for judicial interim release following charges related to a series of violent drugstore robberies and dangerous driving incidents.

The Crown opposed his release on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the accused's history of non-compliance with release orders, and the perceived inadequacy of the proposed surety plan.

Despite the accused's health concerns and the increased risk of COVID-19 in detention, the court found that his continued detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was denied.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident where he repaired a refrigerator in the complainant's apartment.

The complainant alleged the accused touched her inappropriately and made sexual demands.

The accused denied the allegations, citing a language barrier and denying any physical contact.

The court found the complainant generally credible but noted reliability concerns, and while finding it probable the assault occurred, concluded the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after being shot and admitting to police that a gun found at the scene belonged to him.

The court found that the accused's initial roadside utterances were involuntary and obtained in breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

Subsequent statements made in the ambulance and at the hospital were also found to be tainted by the initial breaches, and further s. 10(b) violations occurred at the hospital due to unreasonable delay in facilitating access to counsel, lack of privacy during the consultation, and police questioning before the right was exercised.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the statements under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal.