Michael Owoh

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 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.

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.

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.