Moheb Tewfik

The defendant, Li Kai Li, was arraigned on charges of attempted murder (x2) and assault.

The defence admitted the acts but sought a finding of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

A forensic psychiatrist diagnosed Mr. Li with schizophrenia, exacerbated by cannabis use, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally or legally wrong.

The court accepted the expert's findings, declared Mr. Li not criminally responsible for the offences, and deferred his initial disposition to the Ontario Review Board, ordering him to remain in custody during that process.

The accused, Tsung Ong, was charged with two counts of sexual assault.

The first count was dismissed by Crown concession.

The second count, arising from an incident at the accused's birthday party, involved the complainant alleging the accused sexually assaulted her by pressing his face into her crotch area.

The central issue was witness credibility and the Crown's burden of proof.

The court found the complainant's testimony emotionally difficult but credible, yet noted inconsistencies and lack of detail regarding the alleged incident's mechanics and surrounding events.

The defence witnesses' evidence, while not ruling out the incident, supported the accused's general practice.

Ultimately, the court found that while the accused's testimony could not be accepted as true to the exclusion of other evidence, a reasonable doubt remained regarding the reliability of the complainant's account.

Consequently, the second count was also dismissed.

The offender, L.R., was sentenced following convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation involving a 15-16 year old elite hockey player he coached between 2009 and 2010.

The Crown sought an 8-year global sentence, while the defence proposed 2-3 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for child sexual abuse cases, guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Friesen.

Aggravating factors included the significant age gap, abuse of a position of trust and vulnerability, multiple instances of sexual touching over an extended period, and the profound emotional trauma suffered by the victim.

Mitigating factors included L.R. being a first-time offender, having family support, and leading a pro-social life, along with the impact of stringent pre-sentence release conditions that prevented him from working.

The court imposed a global sentence of 57 months (4 years and 9 months) imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for each count, along with various ancillary orders including DNA, lifelong weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and a Section 161 prohibition.

The accused, a former elite hockey coach, was charged with historical sexual offences against a former player who was 14 to 16 years old at the time.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's categorical denials.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation, as he was in a position of trust.

However, the accused was acquitted of sexual assault for the period after the complainant turned 16, as the Crown failed to prove he actively induced her to engage in sexual activity.

The appellant, Fazal Nagir, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while over 80, raising two grounds: a violation of his s. 10(b) right to counsel and an error by the trial judge in misapprehending evidence regarding mouth alcohol, leading to ss. 8 and 9 Charter violations.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that police efforts to facilitate access to counsel were reasonable and diligent, and that the trial judge did not misapprehend evidence regarding mouth alcohol, thus upholding the reliability of the Approved Screening Device (ASD) test and the grounds for arrest.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation, appealed his conviction.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's assessment of credibility, particularly regarding the absence of motive to fabricate.

The court found that the trial judge erred by treating the absence of evidence of motive to fabricate as a proven lack of motive, which improperly enhanced the complainants' credibility, especially since the defence did not raise the issue.

This was deemed a significant and fatal error, leading to the quashing of convictions and ordering a new trial.