Maya Sengupta-Murray

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault, one count of attempt to choke with intent to enable a sexual assault, and one count of uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, all arising from alleged incidents at a beauty salon.

The complainant was the sole direct witness and the defence called no evidence.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be riddled with material inconsistencies — particularly regarding the knife, prior incidents, and the events of March 5, 2022 — and found that her manner of testifying raised concerns about her reliability and candour.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard, the court found it would not be safe to convict on the evidence adduced and entered acquittals on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery committed on June 14, 2024, when he carjacked a vehicle at gunpoint on Parliament Street in Toronto while on a house arrest release order for an attempted murder charge.

The accused threatened the driver with a firearm (though none was found), forced him from the vehicle, and fled in the stolen car, colliding with other vehicles before abandonment.

The court imposed a suspended sentence of 669 days with 3 years probation, accounting for the accused's youth as a first offender, guilty plea, remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, while balancing denunciation and deterrence principles applicable to carjacking offences.

Joshua Sabourin pleaded guilty to 10 offences, including robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and break and enter.

The parties jointly recommended a 5-year penitentiary sentence, minus pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The court considered the facts, the offender's background (including substance abuse and potential intellectual disability), and legal principles of sentencing (denunciation, deterrence, totality, proportionality, parity).

Despite mitigating factors like the guilty plea, numerous aggravating factors, including a long criminal record, random selection of vulnerable victims, and lack of insight, warranted a significant sentence.

The court acceded to the joint recommendation, imposing concurrent sentences totaling 5 years, and ordered various ancillary measures including DNA submission, a lifetime weapon prohibition, and SOIRA registration.

The appellant, Carlos Zamora, appealed his sentence for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a release order, seeking a conditional discharge instead of the conditional sentence of 90 days and 21 months probation imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was based on two grounds: that the sentencing judge placed undue emphasis on deterrence and failed to properly consider a conditional discharge, and that the judge misapprehended evidence regarding aggravating factors.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the sentencing judge's decision, affirming that the possibility of a conditional discharge was considered and that the aggravating factors were appropriately assessed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The Crown appealed an order staying proceedings against the respondent for sexual assault, based on a breach of the respondent's s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The application judge found that the respondent's delay in electing mode of trial was reasonable due to outstanding essential disclosure, and that the COVID-19 pandemic did not contribute to the delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the pre-election delay was not attributable to the defence and that the pandemic was not an exceptional circumstance in this case.

The Crown sought directions regarding the disclosure of police records concerning a young person (M.A.) involved in an incident related to a murder charge against the accused.

The court determined that records pertaining to extrajudicial measures (EJM) taken with M.A. are presumptively non-disclosable under section 119(4) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to protect the young person from stigmatization.

However, information about the underlying incident, such as a fight and its reason, and any animus between M.A. and the deceased, is disclosable and permissible for witness questioning, provided it does not reveal police involvement or EJM details.

The court suggested an Agreed Statement of Facts as a means to address the defence's need for full answer and defence without violating YCJA provisions.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting the complainant.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability, alleging misapprehension of evidence, uneven scrutiny of Crown and defence evidence, and erroneous reliance on the complainant's apparent lack of animus.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge materially misapprehended evidence regarding the appellant's memory and exculpatory text messages, applied an uneven standard of scrutiny to the evidence, and improperly used the complainant's apparent lack of animus to bolster her credibility.

These errors, in their cumulative effect, detrimentally impacted the reasoning process and rendered the conviction unsafe.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The Crown brought a motion for directions seeking a declaration that a co-accused, Jason Hamilton, had waived solicitor-client privilege over communications with his trial counsel regarding the accuracy and creation of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

Hamilton and the appellant, Haldane Smithen-Davis, were convicted based on this statement, and Smithen-Davis sought to reopen his appeal, relying on Hamilton's affidavit which challenged the statement's veracity and his counsel's advice.

Despite Smithen-Davis waiving his privilege, Hamilton refused.

The Court of Appeal found that Hamilton's partial and selective disclosure in his affidavit, and his reliance on it to explain his actions, constituted an implied waiver of privilege due to fairness.

The court ordered that Hamilton had waived privilege regarding the Agreed Statement of Fact's accuracy and origin, and directed cross-examination on these issues.

The defendant was charged with breaching a release order by being outside his residence contrary to a curfew condition.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court heard the Charter application and the trial concurrently.

The Charter application was dismissed, as the court found no Charter violations during the traffic stop and subsequent investigation.

However, the defendant was acquitted at trial because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the female passenger in the vehicle was not one of the defendant's sureties, which was an exception to his curfew condition.

The officer's investigation into the passenger's identity was deemed insufficient to negate this exception.