Larry Hershel Moldaver

The accused was charged with three counts of assault, one count of threatening death, and one count of assault causing bodily harm against the complainant.

The Crown alleged the defendant assaulted the complainant in separate incidents, on one occasion causing injury, and threatened to kill her.

Following a trial with multiple hearing dates, the court found the accused guilty of one count of assault based on evidence that the defendant blackened the complainant's eye during an altercation the evening prior to a planned move.

The court dismissed the remaining charges, finding insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that all injuries were caused by the accused.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, assault of a peace officer, and disarming a peace officer.

The charges arose from an incident at a housing complex where police officers observed the accused in a vehicle with a plastic bag.

The accused was arrested following a physical altercation with officers.

The trial court acquitted the accused of the drug possession charge, finding insufficient evidence that the cocaine found at the scene was ever in the accused's possession.

However, the court convicted the accused of assault and disarming a peace officer, finding that the officers were lawfully executing their duties and that the accused's resistance and attempt to take the officer's taser were established beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, robbery, and uttering threats arising from a violent attack at a Toronto bus stop.

The complainant identified the accused in court and the Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including DNA on a hat found at the scene and the accused’s presence near the location that night.

The court found significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s descriptions of the attacker and the accused’s actual appearance, including eye colour, hair colour and length, and a missing front tooth.

The court also attached very little weight to the in‑court identification because no photo line-up including the accused had ever been conducted and the identification occurred years later.

Considering the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence and applying the principles from R. v. W. (D.), the court concluded that the Crown had not proven identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Three young women pleaded guilty to forcible confinement and assault causing bodily harm after luring their friend from her home, blindfolding her, forcing her into a vehicle, beating her, and abandoning her unconscious at the roadside.

The Crown sought nine months' imprisonment, while defence counsel argued for a conditional sentence.

The court imposed 195 days in custody followed by two years of probation, finding that while the offenders demonstrated strong rehabilitation potential and remorse, the gravity of the offences and egregious aggravating circumstances required actual imprisonment to satisfy denunciation and general deterrence objectives.