Mitchell Alexander Hawkes

This decision addresses Charter applications by Tutshuma (Paul) Munda and Ade Munda, who were charged with firearms offences following a police search.

The court found that police used excessive force against Paul Munda when he was kicked in the face while handcuffed, breaching his s. 7 Charter rights, and that there was a 22-minute unreasonable delay in facilitating his right to counsel, breaching s. 10(b).

However, the evidence was not excluded, though a sentencing reduction was ordered if convicted.

The court dismissed all Charter claims by Ade Munda, finding the police use of force and delay in providing rights to counsel reasonable, and that inaccuracies in a police synopsis did not materially affect his bail hearing.

The accused, a building superintendent, was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the accused, as well as consideration of Charter arguments.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony, finding it unshaken despite minor inconsistencies regarding timing.

The court applied the W.D. test to the accused's denial, finding his evidence unconvincing and dismissive of the complainant's autonomy.

Ultimately, the court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, concluding that the Crown had proven the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with an excessive blood alcohol concentration.

He brought Charter applications to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, including issues with body-worn cameras, reasonable and probable grounds for arrest/breath demand, and the right to counsel of choice and language-based special circumstances.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding no breaches.

The Crown successfully proved the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt based on observations of impairment and breath test results.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

This ruling addresses three interpretation issues that arose at the outset of a sexual assault trial.

The court determined whether a Japanese interpreter should be provided for the complainant witness and assessed the qualifications of two proposed Japanese language interpreters.

The court ruled that the complainant required an interpreter, that one proposed interpreter (Kwang Hyuon Joo) was not qualified, and that the other proposed interpreter (Ayae Komri) was qualified to provide interpretation.

The decision emphasizes the court's truth-seeking function and provides a detailed analysis of interpreter competence criteria.