Michael Owoh

The Crown brought two applications in a criminal case involving sexual assault and sexual interference charges against the accused, J.A., concerning his step-daughter.

The applications sought a testimonial aid (CCTV testimony) for the complainant and admission of her audio-video recorded police statement.

The Crown abandoned the portion of the testimonial aid application related to another witness.

The application for admission of the recorded police statement was granted by consent.

However, the application for CCTV testimony for the complainant was dismissed.

The court found that the Crown failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that CCTV would facilitate the complainant's testimony, citing a lack of evidence and failure to consider alternative testimonial aids like privacy screens, despite previous judicial guidance on the matter.

Omer Arshi was found guilty of aggravated assault and Salvatore Caravella of common assault, stemming from a bar fight on New Year's Eve 2017-18.

The court determined fit sentences, considering the gravity of the offences, the degree of responsibility of each offender, and various aggravating and mitigating factors.

Arshi received a 15-month conditional sentence followed by 15 months probation, with conditions including house arrest.

Caravella received a suspended sentence and 12 months probation.

Ancillary orders for DNA and weapons prohibitions were also imposed on both.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing a man and his girlfriend on a public transit bus.

The victims had intervened to stop the accused from abusing his own girlfriend.

The Crown sought a sentence of 16 to 18 years, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the brutal nature of the unprovoked attack and the accused's criminal record, against mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 years for attempted murder and 3 years concurrent for aggravated assault, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with attempted murder after stabbing a fellow passenger 11 times on a public transit bus.

The victim had intervened in an aggressive argument between the accused and his girlfriend.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault but denied having the specific intent to kill.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's testimony that he only intended to hurt the victim, finding that the deliberate, forceful, and persistent nature of the attack on vital areas of the body proved a subjective intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder.

A youth was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The Crown and defence agreed that sexual intercourse occurred between the accused and the complainant, both aged 17 at the time.

The sole issue was whether the sexual activity was consensual.

The complainant testified that she did not consent and that the accused forced her into sexual activity despite her verbal and physical resistance.

The accused testified that the sexual activity was consensual and that he obtained the complainant's permission.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with assaulting the complainant on December 2, 2018, outside a hockey rink.

The incident arose from tensions between the parties in youth hockey circles.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the accused's credibility undermined by significant testimonial inconsistencies and rejected the self-defence claim.

The court found the accused was the aggressor who initiated the physical altercation by confronting the complainant as he arrived at the rink with his son.

The accused was found guilty of assault.

Four young persons were charged with multiple counts of armed robbery at Scotiabanks in Mississauga in May and June 2018, as well as related offences.

Three armed robberies occurred within two weeks in May 2018, all at Scotiabanks in Mississauga, committed by perpetrators wearing hoods and masks.

A fourth attempted robbery occurred on June 15, 2018, which was interrupted by police surveillance.

The Crown relied on video surveillance, witness identification, similar fact evidence, and circumstantial evidence to establish identity.

The trial involved complex evidentiary issues including the admissibility of recognition evidence under Leaney principles, similar fact evidence for identity purposes in a rotating group context, and Nikolovski video identification analysis.

The court dismissed charges related to the May 15 robbery due to insufficient evidence.

Convictions were entered on various counts with acquittals on others based on the court's careful analysis of identification evidence and the application of legal principles governing circumstantial evidence.

The Crown sought to admit a third videotaped statement of a complainant made pursuant to section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The statement was taken over 14 months after the alleged offence and just over a week before trial.

Defence counsel challenged admissibility on the grounds that the statement was not made within a reasonable time following the alleged offence.

The court admitted the statement, finding that the delay did not significantly impact the complainant's ability to accurately recall events, particularly given her age at the time of the hearing and the fact that the third statement was tethered to earlier statements made shortly after the alleged offence.

The applicant, R.D., sought to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless cell phone search under s. 8 of the Charter.

The police conducted a "cell phone dump" based on alleged exigent circumstances to prevent data loss, which was later used to obtain a search warrant based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) containing false information about security applications.

The court found no exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search and that the ITO contained inaccurate information, constituting serious state misconduct.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected privacy interests outweighed society's interest in the admission of the highly probative evidence, leading to its exclusion.

The accused was convicted of arson causing damage to property and mischief endangering life following a trial.

The Crown sought a sentence of 2 to 2½ years imprisonment, while the defence sought 90 days on an intermittent basis.

The court imposed 18 months concurrent imprisonment on each charge, followed by three years probation, with conditions including no contact with the victims, a 100-meter exclusion zone, weapons prohibition, DNA order, and mandatory counselling for anger management.

The court emphasized that arson convictions warrant significant sentences regardless of mitigating circumstances, and that conditional sentences are generally inappropriate in arson cases.

A young person charged with three bank robberies committed with an imitation firearm, along with charges of non-compliance with undertakings and bail orders, sought judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed bail on secondary and tertiary grounds under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the young person presented a substantial likelihood of committing further serious offences if released and that no bail conditions could adequately protect the public or maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The proposed sureties (the young person's parents) were found to be unable to effectively supervise their son, having failed to enforce previous bail orders.

The court ordered the young person detained in custody until trial.

The accused was charged with one count of mischief relating to tire slashing on December 26, 2016, one count of arson relating to a car fire on February 7, 2017, and two counts of mischief relating to an attempted car ignition on March 7, 2017.

The Crown relied on video evidence from a gas station and home security camera, along with similar fact evidence to establish the accused's guilt.

The court found the accused guilty of the March 7 mischief charges and the February 7 arson charge using similar fact evidence, but acquitted on the tire slashing charge due to insufficient similarities.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault for forcing the victim to perform oral sex in an apartment building stairwell.

The Crown sought a sentence of 20-26 months, while the defence sought time served (12 months).

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, exceeding the Crown's recommendation due to the gravity of the offence, the violent nature of the assault, the offender's prior sexual assault conviction, and the need for denunciation and specific deterrence.

The court rejected the distinction between oral and vaginal penetration as a determinative sentencing factor.

The accused was charged with two counts of aggravated assault following a stabbing incident outside a bar in Brampton.

Two victims were stabbed during an altercation.

The Crown's case relied primarily on security video evidence and circumstantial evidence, as no eyewitness directly identified the accused as the perpetrator.

The court found that while the evidence established guilt on a balance of probabilities and the accused was very likely guilty, a reasonable doubt remained regarding identification based on the video evidence and other circumstantial factors.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, assault, unlawful confinement, and robbery involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused took all reasonable steps to determine the complainant's age, as she had actively deceived him and presented herself as older, leading to acquittals on the sexual offences.

However, based on surveillance video evidence, the court convicted the accused of assault, unlawful confinement, and robbery for an altercation outside his apartment.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault after pouring hot oil on a teenager who was fighting her son.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 2.5 to 3 years, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court found that the offender's actions were a spontaneous overreaction to protect her son, rather than a premeditated attack.

Considering the offender's status as a first-time offender and the sole caregiver for four children, the court applied the principle of restraint and sentenced her to 90 days in jail to be served intermittently, followed by 24 months of probation.

A youth was charged with using an imitation firearm to rob a complainant of cellular telephones and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown presented evidence from police officers and the complainant regarding a home invasion robbery.

The defendant testified that he was not involved and was merely walking away from the vehicle when arrested.

The court found that while the defendant likely ran from the scene, there was insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to establish his participation in the offence as a party.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.