Mitchell Worsoff

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and care or control while blood-alcohol content exceeded 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused was found sleeping in the driver's seat of his vehicle after it had drifted onto a curb and struck a hydro box.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing BAC of 100 and 90.

The court acquitted on both counts, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that impairment was caused by alcohol rather than exhaustion, and that the breath test evidence was inadmissible due to a serious Charter violation of the accused's right to counsel of choice.

The offender was convicted of human trafficking contrary to Section 279.01 of the Criminal Code, receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking contrary to Section 279.02, and assault contrary to Section 266.

The offender, a 25-year-old permanent resident from Macedonia, exploited a vulnerable 21-year-old woman addicted to cocaine by encouraging her to work at strip clubs and spas, exercising control over her movements, threatening her with violence, and taking the majority of her earnings.

The exploitation occurred over approximately five days in late October 2014 and involved approximately $600-$800 in earnings.

The offender received an 18-month sentence on the trafficking charge, 18 months concurrent on the material benefit charge, and 90 days concurrent on the assault charge, followed by 12 months probation with conditions including no contact with the victim and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The three accused were charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation outside a bar.

The victim had spilled beer on one of the accused, who then followed the victim outside and struck him over the head with a beer bottle.

The Crown alleged a second accused struck the victim with a glass, and the third accused facilitated the assault by confronting the victim.

Relying on surveillance footage and witness testimony, the court found the first accused guilty of all charges.

However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the second accused struck the victim, and found the third accused lacked the requisite intent to be a party to the offence.

The second and third accused were acquitted.

The accused was charged with four counts of assault, two counts of recruiting and holding a person offering sexual services, one count of obtaining financial benefit from sexual services, and two counts of human trafficking.

The Crown narrowed its case to seek conviction on one assault charge (October 31, 2014) and two human trafficking charges.

The trial involved significant credibility issues between the complainant's videotaped police statements (November 2014) and her trial testimony.

The court admitted the police statements under the KGB exception to the hearsay rule and found them ultimately reliable.

The court concluded that the complainant was assaulted on October 31, 2014, and that the accused committed human trafficking by exercising control over the complainant's movements and exploiting her through threats and violence to provide strip club services and surrender her earnings.

The court found the accused received material benefits from the trafficking offence.

The accused was convicted at trial of assault upon his 11-year-old son.

The assault occurred when the accused lost his temper after the child refused to leave a video game to attend a family barbecue, resulting in the accused dragging the child, throwing him against a wall, and holding him by the cheeks and neck.

The Crown sought a four-month jail sentence followed by 18 months of probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, finding that neither custodial nor discharge sentences were appropriate given the aggravating factors balanced against mitigating circumstances.

The accused was charged with assault of his minor son during a family dispute.

The Crown alleged that the accused, in anger, pulled his son to the doorway, threw him towards the door, choked him, and forced him onto a stool by the entrance.

The defence claimed the accused only pulled his son across the floor after reasonable persuasion failed, held his face briefly to get his attention, and that section 43 of the Criminal Code provided a defence for reasonable parental discipline.

The central issue was credibility.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable and accepted the credible evidence of the three child witnesses.

The court determined that the accused's actions were plainly outside the scope of section 43 and constituted excessive force.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused sought release on bail following charges including forcible entry, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of prohibited weapons, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and forcible confinement.

The Crown alleged the accused was the main perpetrator in a violent home invasion and assault that resulted in serious injuries to the victim.

The accused testified in his own defence, claiming limited involvement and self-defence.

The court found the Crown's case reasonably strong but granted bail with stringent conditions, including residence outside Toronto with a substantial surety and monitoring requirements.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a professional association to withdraw him from its professional studies program for possessing unauthorized study notes during an examination.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was not given notice of the investigation or an opportunity to appear in person to show cause why the maximum penalty should not be imposed.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding serious breaches of procedural fairness by both the initial decision-maker and the appeals committee, and held that the decisions were unreasonable.

The matter was remitted for a rehearing to allow the applicant to make submissions in person regarding the appropriate penalty.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the licensee's liquor licence and an Order to immediately suspend it.

At the hearing, the parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee failed to clear signs of service and consumption of liquor after hours, and allowed a patron to remove liquor from the premises.

The Board accepted the joint submission, ordering a 30-day suspension of the liquor licence and the surrender of the caterer's endorsement.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence for serving a minor, failing to check identification, and permitting drunkenness.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition, the Board found the licensee breached the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

The Board ordered a 13-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Judge ordering a new trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the original trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the appellant's level of impairment when he was found sitting behind the wheel with the keys in the ignition.

The trial judge's error was sufficiently serious to require a new trial.

The appeal was dismissed.