Michael Dias Godinho

Dwayne Thomas, a correctional officer, was found guilty of sexual assault (vaginal penetration of an inmate under his direct supervision) and breach of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the abuse of authority, and the assault occurring in a private area beyond surveillance.

Mitigating factors included the offender's positive community relationships and support.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of six and a half years in penitentiary, with concurrent sentences for both offences.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a 10-year s. 109 order, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

Dwayne Thomas, a correctional officer, was charged with sexual assault and breach of trust involving an inmate, J.S., at the Vanier Centre for Women.

J.S. alleged non-consensual vaginal intercourse in a shower area, providing pants with the accused's semen as evidence.

Thomas claimed the encounter was consensual and initiated by J.S., involving manual masturbation, not intercourse.

The court found J.S. to be a credible witness and Thomas's testimony unbelievable and evasive.

The court concluded that J.S. did not consent to the sexual contact, and Thomas's actions constituted a serious breach of his public trust as a correctional officer.

Thomas was found guilty on both counts.

J.S. appealed his sentence for possession of child pornography and voyeurism, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not considering a conditional sentence, misassessing *Friesen* factors, and not giving enough weight to injuries suffered in custody.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, finding the sentencing judge implicitly rejected a conditional sentence, correctly applied *Friesen* factors, and adequately considered the collateral consequences of the appellant's injuries by imposing a sentence at the low end of the range.

The court affirmed the original sentence and recommended protective custody for the appellant.

Mehdi Ranjbaran appealed three criminal convictions: one for assault cause bodily harm and two for simple assault against his wife.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge's oral reasons for the assault cause bodily harm conviction insufficient, as they failed to adequately explain the path to conviction and did not explicitly address the objective foreseeability of bodily harm, a necessary mens rea element.

This deficiency frustrated proper appellate review.

However, the written reasons for the two simple assault convictions, though brief, were deemed sufficient as they clearly articulated the rejection of the appellant's evidence and acceptance of the complainant's.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part: the conviction for assault cause bodily harm was quashed, and a new trial was ordered for that charge before a different judge.

The appeals for the two simple assault convictions were dismissed, and those convictions were upheld.

Anand Dindyal was charged with 11 counts, including assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief, primarily against Jennifer Hamp and one count against Larz Kovacevic.

The trial proceeded as a judge-alone trial.

The court assessed the credibility of witnesses, applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The complainant, Jennifer Hamp, was found credible, while Dindyal's testimony was deemed contrived and implausible.

The court found Dindyal guilty on 10 of the 11 counts, dismissing one count of assault due to reasonable doubt regarding intentional contact.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test results under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the approved screening device demand and reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.

The accused also challenged whether the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The court found the police had reasonable suspicion and reasonable and probable grounds, dismissed the Charter application, and found the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of a child under sixteen years of age.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the video-taped statement and trial testimony of the nine-year-old complainant, who alleged multiple incidents of inappropriate touching over a six-month period.

The accused denied the allegations, acknowledging only accidental contact during tickling games and one inadvertent kiss during horseplay.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including numerous inconsistencies regarding the timing and nature of the alleged incidents, poor quality of the video-taped statement with 123 indiscernible passages, and concerns about potential parental influence on the child's perception of the accused.

The court acquitted the accused on both counts, finding the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL.

The Crown relied on observations of erratic driving by civilian witnesses and breath sample analysis.

The accused claimed his poor driving was due to unfamiliarity with his new vehicle's technology and fear of being robbed.

The court rejected the accused's explanations as internally and externally inconsistent, finding them incapable of raising reasonable doubt.

The court also found that the 22-minute delay in obtaining breath samples, which resulted from facilitating the accused's right to counsel, was reasonable and did not violate the "as soon as practicable" requirement.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test results on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including: (1) the officer's failure to properly identify the approved screening device used; (2) the officer's failure to inform the accused of the reason for detention; (3) the officer's failure to provide the right to counsel during the detention period while awaiting the arrival of the screening device; and (4) procedural deficiencies in the investigation.

The court excluded the breath test evidence and dismissed the charge.

The defendant was charged with five offences arising from operating a motor vehicle on a highway without proper documentation and insurance.

The charges included: failing to surrender a vehicle permit, failing to surrender a driver's licence, failing to surrender an insurance card, using an unauthorized number plate, and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.

The defendant did not appear at trial.

The court found the defendant guilty of all charges, but applied the rule against multiple convictions to the insurance-related offences, entering a conviction on the more serious charge and a conditional stay on the lesser charge.