M. Hamalengwa

The accused was charged with three sexual offence counts involving a minor: sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, and two counts of sexual touching of a person under 16 years of age contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The allegations occurred between August 1, 2010, and January 31, 2011, in Burlington, Ontario.

The complainant testified that the accused, who was her mother's boyfriend, engaged in repeated sexual contact with her over a period of months.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be vague, inconsistent, and unreliable, and determined that the accused's testimony, while also lacking credibility in certain respects, did not need to be fully assessed given the reasonable doubt arising from the complainant's evidence.

The court acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused, a paralegal, was charged with trafficking in marijuana (85 grams) contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown alleged that the accused delivered drugs to an inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Institution during a professional visit on September 12, 2011.

The inmate testified that the accused handed him a package containing marijuana in a locked interview room.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed to be the victim of a conspiracy.

The court found the inmate's evidence credible and consistent with all other Crown evidence, rejected the accused's testimony as nonsensical and paranoid, and convicted the accused based on direct evidence and compelling circumstantial evidence.

The applicant, who was being tried for assault in the Ontario Court of Justice, brought a mid-trial application in the Superior Court of Justice seeking to remove the trial judge due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant argued the trial judge was partial to the Crown, permitted a witness to abuse the accused, and improperly curtailed cross-examination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the trial judge's interventions were aimed at ensuring all necessary evidence was before the court for the unrepresented accused's benefit, and that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required for mid-trial removal of a judge.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings until state funding for defence counsel was provided after his legal aid certificate was cancelled.

The Crown argued the application was premature because counsel remained on the record and further alleged the accused had not prioritized funding his defence.

The court held that removal of counsel from the record is not an absolute prerequisite to a Rowbotham application and must be assessed contextually.

Given the accused’s indigence, serious and complex fraud charge, health limitations, and extensive disclosure, the court concluded that a fair trial could not proceed without counsel.

A conditional stay was granted to permit the Attorney General an opportunity to arrange funding for defence counsel.