Michelle Johal

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Samarpreet Singh for committing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend under section 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved exposing himself to a victim in her home over a prolonged period while making inappropriate comments.

The Court rejected the defence's request for a conditional discharge, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the significant impact on the victim, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

A 90-day conditional sentence served under house arrest followed by 12 months probation was imposed, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order and no-contact conditions.

The Court also addressed the collateral immigration consequences, noting that inadmissibility to Canada would result from conviction but should not influence sentencing.

The accused, R.E.G., was charged with assault and sexual assault against the complainant, K.R. The judge-alone trial focused on the complainant's testimony, as she was the sole witness.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including a clear motive to fabricate the complaint due to animus over perceived infidelity and relationship expectations.

Material inconsistencies in her testimony, deliberate vagueness, and lack of candour regarding post-offence contact with the accused further undermined her credibility.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

Si-Qi Liang pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity and explicit nature of the material, and mitigating factors such as his lack of a criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and low risk of re-offending as assessed by a forensic psychiatrist.

The court emphasized the child-centered approach to sentencing in child pornography cases, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

A conditional sentence was deemed unfit.

Liang was sentenced to 9.5 months of incarceration, followed by 18 months of probation, a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registry Act (SOIRA) order, and a DNA order.

The court declined to impose broader Section 161 prohibition orders but imposed specific internet restrictions for three years.

The Crown applied to have Ali Butt declared a Dangerous Offender following his guilty pleas to two charges of criminal harassment and two charges of threatening death.

Butt opposed the Dangerous Offender designation but conceded that the criteria for a Long Term Offender were met.

The court found that a pattern of violent conduct had been established, meeting the requirements of ss. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code, and that there was a high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

However, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Butt's conduct was intractable, considering his treatment prospects, willingness to engage in therapy, and developing insight.

Consequently, the Dangerous Offender designation was denied.

Butt was declared a Long Term Offender and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for criminal harassment and threatening death, along with an eight-year Long Term Supervision Order.

The defendant was charged with multiple counts including mischief, assault, dangerous driving, and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle collision.

At trial, the defendant conceded to several charges but contested whether she struck her mother with a mug, damaged a lamp, and whether she fled the scene to escape civil or criminal liability.

The court found the defendant guilty on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and not guilty on counts 3 and 7.

The court accepted the Crown's evidence regarding the lamp damage and the defendant's flight from the scene, but found a reasonable doubt regarding whether the defendant struck her mother with a mug.

The accused was convicted after trial of failing to stop while being pursued by police, dangerous driving, and failing to stop after an accident with intent to escape civil or criminal liability, arising from a police chase on January 18, 2016.

A Charter breach was found due to the Crown's failure to disclose a critical witness statement.

The court determined that a sentence reduction was the appropriate remedy, sentencing the accused as if he had pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, while also accounting for the stress of enduring trial.

The accused received 90 days intermittent on dangerous driving and four months conditional sentences on the flight charges, with a 12-month driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with over .08 and impaired operation following a motor vehicle collision.

The defence sought to exclude breath test results on the grounds that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to make the breath demand and that the officer breached the accused's Charter rights by delaying the provision of rights to counsel.

The court found that the nature of the accident combined with evidence of alcohol consumption provided an objective basis for the breath demand.

The court also found that a five-minute delay in providing rights to counsel did not constitute a breach of s. 10(b) rights.

The application for Charter relief was dismissed and the breath tests were admitted as evidence.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and detention on Charter grounds, arguing that the officer violated his section 8 and 9 rights by entering his property without consent and by detaining him for an excessive period after breath testing.

The court found that the officer lawfully entered the property pursuant to an implied licence to investigate a report of impaired driving, and that the accused's statement that he did not wish to speak was not a clear withdrawal of that licence.

The court further found that the detention period was justified based on the accused's blood alcohol level and other relevant factors.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge over-emphasized general deterrence, failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, and failed to consider pre-trial bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the deliberate and prolonged course of deceitful conduct that seriously impacted the victim.

The court also held that the failure to advert to pre-trial bail conditions was not fatal.