L. Sandhu

The accused was tried for two counts of first-degree murder in the stabbing deaths of his wife and mother-in-law.

The Crown argued for constructive first-degree murder on the basis that the killings occurred during a forcible confinement.

The accused conceded he killed the victims but argued he lacked the requisite intent due to intoxication and denied forcible confinement.

The court rejected the intoxication defence, finding the accused had the intent to murder based on his actions, the extent of the injuries, and his post-offence conduct.

The court also found that the accused forcibly confined the victims by dragging them from an upstairs bedroom to the kitchen where the fatal wounds were inflicted.

The accused was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder.

The accused, a taxicab driver, was charged with second degree murder after running over an intoxicated passenger with his minivan.

The incident was captured on a residential surveillance camera.

The accused testified that he accidentally struck the victim while looking for oncoming traffic.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as irreconcilable with the video footage and internally illogical.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally drove his vehicle at the victim in anger and possessed the requisite mens rea for murder.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault, the sentencing judge determined what facts could properly ground sentence under s. 724(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court held the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating feature of sexual intercourse, given inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony and the prior consistent witness's evidence, and sentenced on the basis of one incident of touching in a car and one incident of touching in a basement.

Applying the modern sentencing approach to sexual offences against children, with primary emphasis on denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed 15 months' incarceration.

DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders were also made.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award that ordered them to pay $275,431 in damages and costs for breach of a real estate development agreement.

The respondent brought a cross-application to enforce the award.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator made no errors of law and that the issues raised regarding the Real Property Limitations Act and the assessment of damages were questions of mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The court granted the respondent's application to enforce the award.

The appellant appealed convictions for four counts of assault and two counts of uttering threats arising from incidents involving his spouse.

He argued that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant’s credibility, failed to address inconsistencies in the evidence, improperly applied the test in R. v. W.(D.), and should have drawn an adverse inference from the Crown’s failure to call a witness.

The summary conviction appeal court held that credibility findings are entitled to substantial deference absent palpable and overriding error and that the trial judge reasonably accepted the complainant’s detailed evidence, which was partially corroborated by police observations.

The court further held that the Crown had no obligation to call the witness and that any variance in offence dates was immaterial and caused no prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault involving brief anal penetration of the complainant during a workplace party after consensual dancing and kissing.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the accused’s lack of criminal record, positive pre‑sentence report, and rehabilitative prospects.

The defence sought a sentence of six months less a day due to immigration consequences that could lead to deportation.

The court held that while immigration consequences may be considered, they cannot justify a sentence outside the appropriate range.

A custodial sentence of nine months followed by two years’ probation was imposed as proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s responsibility.