Mandeep Saggi

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify via closed-circuit television in a trial involving allegations of intimate partner violence.

The Crown argued that the complainant's ongoing fear and anxiety created a real risk of witness shutdown if required to testify in the accused's presence.

The court granted the application, finding that the evidentiary record established on a balance of probabilities that the testimonial aid would facilitate a full and candid account without impairing trial fairness.

Sentencing for a summary conviction sexual assault committed by a ride-share driver against a young passenger during a late-night trip.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives but held that a custodial sentence was not required given the offender's guilty plea, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, low risk to reoffend, and strong evidence of insight.

The court characterized the assault as at the low end of the sexual assault spectrum, while recognizing significant emotional and psychological harm to the complainant and a serious breach of trust.

A suspended sentence with 18 months' probation, DNA order, and weapons prohibition was imposed, but a Sexual Offender Information Registration Act reporting order was declined.

The defendant brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 26 months and 13 days.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including time for a missed pre-trial, a refused trial date, and a portion of the delay attributed to the defendant's failure to proactively raise section 11(b) concerns for over 14 months after the trial date was set.

The net delay was calculated at 17 months and 28 days, which fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault, uttering threats, and criminal harassment against his former intimate partner.

The complainant alleged the offences occurred after she discovered he was married with a child and attempted to end their relationship.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming they were planning to marry and the complainant's family conspired against him.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court found the complainant highly credible and rejected the accused's evidence as illogical and internally inconsistent.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

The accused was tried on two counts: assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code and assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from incidents on February 23, 2017, involving a 21-month-old toddler in the accused's home daycare.

The Crown alleged the accused repeatedly dropped the child onto a carpeted floor in a hallway and assaulted the child in a stairwell by yanking her arm and slapping her face.

The accused claimed the injuries resulted from accidental falls and normal childcare activities.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts based on video surveillance evidence of the stairwell assault and credible eyewitness testimony regarding the hallway incidents.