Matthew Capotosto

The defendant, Allan Hill, brought a motion for severance of five criminal charges (three sexual assault counts and two assault counts) involving three different complainants, seeking three separate trials.

The court considered the factors for severance under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code, including the risk of prejudice to the accused, factual and legal nexus between counts, complexity of evidence, the accused's intention to testify, possibility of inconsistent verdicts, desire to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, use of similar fact evidence, trial length, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time (Jordan limits).

The court found that the public interest in a single trial outweighed any risk of prejudice to the accused, particularly given it was a judge-alone trial where such risks are diminished.

The application for severance was dismissed.

The accused, Seleshi Robi, was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The defence argued involuntary intoxication, claiming the accused was unaware that the traditional Ethiopian drink, Tej, consumed at a church celebration, contained alcohol.

The defence also attributed erratic driving and physical observations to extreme fatigue and back pain.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding his lack of knowledge about Tej's alcohol content and his English comprehension to be incredible and unreliable, given his statements to police and the nature of the drink.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, dismissing the defence of involuntary intoxication and finding the accused guilty.

The accused was convicted at trial of possession of 55 grams of ketamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence while the defence sought 90 days.

The court imposed a 7-month custodial sentence followed by two years probation, finding that while the accused demonstrated significant rehabilitation efforts and was an addict trafficker rather than profit-motivated, the prior related conviction, the amount of the drug, and the dangers posed by ketamine required a custodial sentence beyond what the defence proposed.

The accused was arrested for suspected impaired driving and found in possession of 55 grams of ketamine, 0.2 grams of ketamine in a separate package with a straw, cash, and a cellular phone.

A search of his vehicle revealed additional drugs, scales, multiple cellular phones, and a bag of white powder.

The defence conceded possession of ketamine but contested whether it was possessed for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the quantity of the drug, expert evidence regarding typical consumption rates, the presence of scales and multiple phones, and the accused's financial circumstances.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding heavy personal use was not credible and that the only rational inference from the evidence was that the ketamine was possessed for trafficking purposes.

This is a costs ruling following a respondent's motion for summary judgment.

The respondent sought to dismiss the applicant's claims to set aside a decree nisi and separation agreement, allowing her to pursue property division under the Family Law Act and spousal support.

The court granted summary judgment regarding the equalization claim but dismissed it for the balance of the applicant's claims.

Given the mixed success of both parties, the absence of cost-triggering offers to settle, and the applicant's unnecessarily expansive affidavit materials, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The respondent moved for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's motion to change, which sought to set aside a 1984 separation agreement and 1985 decree nisi to pursue property division and spousal support.

The applicant alleged abuse, undue influence, coercion, duress, lack of independent legal advice, and non-disclosure of assets.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the equalization claim due to substantial prejudice from delay but dismissed the respondent's motion regarding spousal support, finding genuine issues for trial.

The applicant's constructive trust claim was withdrawn.