Monica Samir Aboul Makarm Gharabaway

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence of a firearm and cocaine found during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The search warrant was based largely on information from two confidential informants.

The court applied the step 6 Garofoli procedure, providing a judicial summary of excised material and permitting limited cross-examination of the affiant.

The court found the informants' information was credible, compelling, and sufficiently corroborated by police investigation to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The application was dismissed, with the court noting that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm after striking a pedestrian while driving with a blood alcohol concentration approximately twice the legal limit.

The offence caused significant physical and psychological harm to the victim and involved property damage.

The accused had prior convictions for impaired driving and related offences, constituting a third drinking-and-driving offence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for impaired driving offences causing bodily harm.

Balancing aggravating factors with mitigating factors including a guilty plea, expressions of remorse, employment history, family support, and efforts at alcohol treatment, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The accused, a nightclub bouncer and a patron, were charged with aggravated assault following a violent altercation at a crowded nightclub.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from security personnel, the victim, and the victim's friend, as well as a statement from the bouncer's former girlfriend.

The court found the eyewitness identification evidence to be highly unreliable due to poor lighting, chaotic circumstances, inconsistencies, and evidence of collusion between the victim and his friend.

The court also admitted prior consistent statements from the bouncer.

Finding the Crown's evidence insufficient to prove identity and participation beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted both accused.