Mitch Engel

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault, one count of attempt to choke with intent to enable a sexual assault, and one count of uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, all arising from alleged incidents at a beauty salon.

The complainant was the sole direct witness and the defence called no evidence.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be riddled with material inconsistencies — particularly regarding the knife, prior incidents, and the events of March 5, 2022 — and found that her manner of testifying raised concerns about her reliability and candour.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard, the court found it would not be safe to convict on the evidence adduced and entered acquittals on all counts.

The defendant, Anushan Uthayakumar, faced charges including careless storage of a firearm and possession of a loaded restricted firearm after a traffic stop and subsequent discovery of a weapon.

The defence sought to exclude the firearm, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, specifically arguing racial profiling in the selection of the surveillance location, a pretextual traffic stop, and an unlawful search of the vehicle.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding no evidence of racial profiling, that the traffic stop was a legitimate sobriety check, and that the cannabis discovery leading to the search was lawful.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with dangerous driving causing death after his vehicle struck multiple objects and a bus, killing his passenger.

The defence argued that the accused was experiencing a seizure at the time of the collision, rendering his actions involuntary and negating the requisite mens rea.

The Crown contended that the accused was conscious and driving recklessly, or alternatively, that his decision to drive despite a history of possible seizures constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was experiencing a seizure during the erratic driving.

Furthermore, the court held that the accused's decision to drive was not a marked departure from the standard of care, as he had previously been advised by a neurologist that he could continue driving.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance (fentanyl and heroin) after delivering a package containing 494 grams of the drugs to an undercover officer's co-conspirator.

The accused admitted to transferring the package but claimed she did not know it contained drugs, asserting that an acquaintance had left it in her car and asked her to deliver it.

The court rejected her evidence as unbelievable, finding that she either knew the package contained illegal drugs or was wilfully blind to that fact, given the suspicious circumstances and the high value of the drugs ($39,500).

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant sought a bail review following a denial of bail, arguing a material change in circumstances due to a stronger supervision plan with electronic monitoring and unmet medical needs in custody.

The applicant was charged with weapons offences following a shootout in a residential area.

The court found that the Crown had a strong case and that the tertiary ground for detention was engaged.

The court concluded that releasing the applicant would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and dismissed the application.