Parmbir Gill

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against four teenage and pre-teenage girls, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the complainants' credibility or her conclusion that they had not colluded.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the sentence and reduced the global sentence from eight years and four months to eight years, noting that the trial judge had imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's submission on totality.

The applicant was convicted at trial of one count of luring a person under 16 years by telecommunications, three counts of sexual assault, and three counts of sexual interference involving multiple child complainants.

He received a global sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending appeal on three grounds: misapplication of the burden and standard of proof under R. v. W.(D.), insufficient reasons for conviction, and an unreasonable verdict on the child luring charge.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous but dismissed the bail application on public interest grounds, finding that the seriousness of the offences and the weakness of the grounds of appeal outweighed the reviewability interest despite minimal public safety concerns.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions for assault, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

The appellant was convicted based primarily on the testimony of a developmentally delayed complainant who functioned cognitively at the level of an 8-9 year old.

The complainant alleged multiple assaults and sexual assaults occurring during his employment with the appellant in a landscaping and snow plowing business between August 2015 and October 2018.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based largely on credibility findings regarding the complainant.

The appellate court identified significant errors in the trial judge's treatment of inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including a legal error regarding hearsay classification and a misapprehension of evidence regarding statements to a third-party observer.

The court found these errors, combined with insufficient reasons addressing major inconsistencies, constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Robert Ashley Williams from his conviction for second degree murder.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not leaving the partial defence of provocation with the jury and by misdirecting the jury on the defence of self-defence.

The court found that the evidence did not support leaving provocation with the jury, as the appellant's actions made the victim's response foreseeable and there was no air of reality to the loss of self-control or suddenness elements.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's self-defence instructions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, Anis Rehman, was charged with sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a young complainant at a private daycare in 2019.

The court reviewed the evidence of the complainant, the accused, and defence witnesses, and applied the principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, especially as they relate to child witnesses.

The court found the complainant credible but concluded that the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused, William Schatz, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a 17-year-old student.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the egregious breach of trust by a teacher and the profound, long-lasting impact on the victim and her sister.

Mitigating factors included the accused's guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, and strong community support.

The Crown sought a two-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed a 6 to 12-month conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, emphasizing that carceral sentences are the norm for sexual offences against children, and imposed an 18-month incarceration period followed by two years of probation.

The court declined to impose a SOIRA order, finding it disproportionate given the accused's low risk of reoffending and the significant time elapsed since the offence.

The appellant was charged with manslaughter and firearms offences in December 2015.

Trial was scheduled within the Jordan ceiling but delays arose when the Crown refused to consent to a judge-alone trial, causing the net delay to reach approximately 35 months, exceeding the 30-month ceiling.

The trial judge denied a stay of proceedings by applying a transitional exceptional circumstance, finding the parties had reasonably relied on pre-Jordan law.

The Supreme Court held that no transitional exceptional circumstance applied: after Jordan was decided in July 2016, the parties could not have reasonably relied on the prior state of the law, and the delay was attributable to the Crown's refusal to adapt rather than insufficient time for the system to do so.

The Court also rejected a bright-line rule that would characterize all delay following defence counsel's rejection of a court-offered date as defence delay.

The appellant appealed a four-year sentence for importing five kilograms of cocaine, arguing the sentencing judge overemphasized general deterrence, leading to a disproportionate sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the sentencing judge thoroughly considered all factors and imposed a sentence significantly below the typical range.

The court also rejected fresh evidence regarding the appellant's mother's deteriorating health, finding it did not meet the Palmer test for admitting new evidence on appeal.

The appellant, Dia 'Eddin Hanan, appealed his conviction for manslaughter and firearms-related offences, and his sentence, following a jury trial.

The appeal raised two main grounds: an alleged breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time, and alleged errors in the trial judge's jury charge regarding the burden of proof and self-defence.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

They upheld the trial judge's assessment of delay, including the attribution of defence delay and the application of the transitional exceptional circumstance under R. v. Jordan.

They also found no reversible error in the jury instructions, concluding that the charge, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the burden of proof and the W.(D.) rule.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding a s. 11(b) breach and serious errors in the jury instructions.

The union applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's supplementary decision regarding the termination of employee benefits during the discipline process.

The arbitrator found that the employer's obligation to continue providing benefits to employees grieving their dismissal up to step three of the grievance procedure only lasted until the expiry of the collective agreement and the statutory freeze.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's decision was based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

R.K. was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation involving two complainants (B and T) from different time periods (1997 and 2017).

R.K. applied for severance of the counts, and the Crown brought a cross-application for similar fact evidence.

The court dismissed the Crown's similar fact application, finding insufficient probative value and significant prejudice due to the generic nature of alleged similarities, the 20-year time gap, and differing allegations.

The court granted R.K.'s severance application, concluding that the interests of justice required separate trials.

This decision was based on the lack of admissible similar fact evidence, the accused's reasonable desire to testify on some counts but not others, and the absence of a strong factual or legal nexus between the remote allegations.