Baqa Rashdi

Following a trial regarding the parties' respective interests in a residential property, the respondent was the successful party and sought costs.

The respondent had made an offer to settle that exceeded the applicant's recovery at trial.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer, and on a full recovery basis thereafter pursuant to Family Law Rule 18(14), fixing the total costs payable by the applicant at $21,520.61 after deducting costs for a prior motion.

The parties, former common-law partners, disputed the division of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned home.

The applicant held a 99% interest on title, which she claimed reflected her sole contribution to the down payment and closing costs.

The respondent, who held a 1% interest, argued the ownership structure was solely to maximize a first-time homebuyer land transfer tax rebate and that they intended to be equal owners.

The court found that the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and that the respondent's payment of the mortgage and other contributions established a constructive trust for a 49% interest.

The net sale proceeds were ordered to be divided equally, subject to adjustments for post-separation expenses and a joint line of credit debt attributed solely to the respondent.

The defendant, Srinivasan Venkata Gadam, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, A., alleged multiple sexual assaults by the defendant between April and August 2013, occurring in the defendant's condominium.

The court considered the cultural context of sexual assault complaints in India and the defendant's threats as explanations for the complainant's delayed reporting.

The defence argued for a consensual relationship or fabrication.

The court found the complainant credible, rejected the defence arguments, and concluded that the defendant sexually assaulted the complainant without consent, finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown brought a voir dire application to qualify an interpreter for the complainant in a sexual assault trial.

The proposed interpreter, Arum Narayan, had prior experience but lacked formal training, could not read or write Telugu, and his fluency for legal contexts was not sufficiently proven.

The court applied the R. v. Tran test for interpreter qualifications (continuity, precision, impartiality, competency, and contemporaneousness).

The application was dismissed, as the court was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the interpreter met the high standard required under section 14 of the Charter, emphasizing the vagueness of the evidence regarding his qualifications.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the second trial date was approximately 115 weeks.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that the majority of the delay was inherent to the case, including significant time spent on resolution discussions and the Crown's assessment of the prospects of conviction.

The institutional delay was within acceptable limits, and the accused failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

The application was dismissed.

Before the commencement of a sexual assault trial, the Crown sought a ruling on the qualifications of a proposed Telugu interpreter for the complainant.

The interpreter was multilingual but not accredited or conditionally accredited in Telugu and could not read or write the language.

Following a voir dire, the court considered the standards for interpreter qualification under s. 14 of the Charter and relevant jurisprudence requiring continuous, precise, impartial, competent, and contemporaneous interpretation.

The court held that while accreditation is not constitutionally required, there must be an independent and objective basis to establish competency.

In the absence of such evidence, the proposed interpreter was found not properly qualified.