Mahdi Bayat

The accused brought a Charter motion challenging a search warrant executed at his residence nearly two years after a robbery and firearm discharge offence.

The accused conceded reasonable grounds existed to believe he was the perpetrator but argued there were insufficient grounds to believe evidence would still be found at his residence.

He also argued that the inclusion of bad character evidence in the ITO was improper and that a subsequent cell phone warrant was overbroad.

The court dismissed the application, finding it reasonable to infer that clothing and cell phones would be retained over two years, that bad character evidence of similar robbery offences was relevant at the investigatory stage, and that any potential overbreadth in the cell phone warrant caused no prejudice as no evidence from the phone was tendered at trial.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm without a licence or authorization and possessing a firearm with an altered serial number.

The offences occurred when police discovered the firearm in a vehicle during a cannabis investigation.

The offender was 22 years old at the time with no prior criminal record.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 16 months and 22 days to be served in the community, followed by three years of probation, after crediting pre-sentence custody.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, considering the offender's youth, guilty plea, remorse, significant mental health challenges stemming from childhood abuse, and positive steps toward rehabilitation.

The offender was convicted of failing to yield to a pedestrian and driving while under suspension under the Highway Traffic Act after striking and killing an 85-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk.

The offender had a lengthy history of driving while suspended for unpaid fines.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation for regulatory offences, sentencing the offender to 15 days of intermittent imprisonment, 12 months of probation, and a $500 fine.

The accused, D.C., was charged with sexual interference of his step-daughter.

The trial involved preliminary motions regarding the admissibility of statements and a "demand letter." The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding key incidents and the "demand letter" as well as discrepancies in her explanation for delayed disclosure.

Despite finding the complainant generally credible, the court concluded that the inconsistencies raised a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian and driving while under suspension after a black pickup truck struck an elderly woman on a mobility scooter in a crosswalk.

The central issue was the identity of the driver, as no witness saw the defendant actually driving or sitting in the driver's seat.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including witness descriptions of a shirtless, nervous man who exited the driver's side and called 9-1-1, and police identification of the defendant at the scene, the court found the only reasonable inference was that the defendant was the driver.

The court also held that the defendant was deemed to have received notice of his licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was found guilty of both offences.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and excess blood alcohol after his vehicle was found stuck in a ditch.

The accused claimed he was not the driver and only occupied the driver's seat to try to extricate the vehicle while his friend pushed.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as untruthful, finding he was the driver based on his initial statements to police.

Alternatively, the court found the accused had care or control of the vehicle by occupying the driver's seat with the intention of setting it in motion, thereby failing to rebut the statutory presumption of operation.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.