Narissa Somji

The accused, a former Canadian Senator, was charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment of his executive assistant between September 2013 and March 2014.

The complainant alleged repeated unwanted sexual touching at the office and during work trips, as well as controlling and threatening conduct that caused her to fear for her psychological safety.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial involved extensive testimony from the complainant, the accused, his wife, and corroborating witnesses.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including contradictions with witness testimony and inconsistencies regarding key events.

The accused's evidence was found to be straightforward and credible.

The court applied the W.D. framework and found that the evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to obtaining a material benefit from the sale of sexual services contrary to section 286.2 of the Criminal Code.

Between April 8 and August 16, 2022, the accused facilitated and profited from the complainant's sale of sexual services through advertising, managing communications with clients, booking hotel rooms, and transporting the complainant across multiple cities.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by 18 months of probation, finding that while denunciation and deterrence are paramount sentencing objectives for sexual commodification offences, the circumstances of this case—involving a single adult victim, no violence or coercion, and the accused's rehabilitation efforts—warranted a community-based sentence rather than incarceration.

The Crown sought to call Dr. Saumil Dholakia, a treating psychiatrist, as a participant expert to provide opinion evidence regarding his assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of the accused Hue Lam during the period from February 8 to September 30, 2022.

The defence opposed the admission of Dr. Dholakia's opinion evidence, arguing that if qualified as an expert, the jury would improperly compare his opinions with those of Dr. Zeynep Selaman, a litigation expert retained by the defence.

The court ruled that Dr. Dholakia could testify as a participant expert and provide opinion evidence within defined parameters, finding that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by prejudicial effects and that appropriate jury instructions could address defence concerns.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert psychiatric evidence and hospital records in a first-degree murder trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The accused sought to introduce seven hospital records as business records and expert opinion evidence from a forensic psychiatrist regarding the accused's mental health condition, the effects of chronic abuse, and related psychiatric concepts.

The Crown opposed both applications on grounds of hearsay, prejudicial effect, and necessity.

The court admitted the hospital records as business records and qualified the expert to provide opinion evidence on psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, causes, and impacts of mental disorders, while restricting the expert from opining on the specific conduct of the accused.

This is a ruling on the admissibility of defence expert opinion evidence in a criminal trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The defence sought to call Dr. Danièle Bélanger, an expert in Vietnamese society, gender, family, and migration, to provide cultural context evidence.

The Crown opposed the admission of this evidence.

The trial judge conducted a voir dire and ruled that the expert evidence was admissible, finding that it met all threshold requirements under the Mohan framework and that the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effects.

The evidence was found to be logically relevant to issues of credibility, motive, intent, and self-defence, and necessary to assist the jury in understanding the accused's state of mind and the cultural context in which they operated.

The court ruled on whether the defences of self-defence and provocation should be put to the jury in a case where two sisters admitted to killing their elderly mother.

The accused claimed they acted in self-defence based on a lifetime of physical and verbal abuse, which escalated in the week preceding the killing.

The court found an air of reality to the self-defence defence for both accused, considering the chronic abuse, the accused's cultural background, their mental health conditions, and the modified objective test applicable to self-defence.

The court rejected the provocation defence due to insufficient specificity regarding the triggering act and the lack of evidence that the accused acted "on the sudden."

This decision concerns an uncontested family law trial in which the applicant mother, Narjes Ebrahimi, sought a divorce, a parenting order, and retroactive and ongoing child support based on an imputed income for the respondent father, Mohammad Ali Muradi, who has been absent since 2016.

The court granted a final parenting order in the best interests of the child, C.M., and a divorce, but denied the request for child support due to lack of evidence regarding the father's income or whereabouts.

The court considered a motion by the mother to relocate with the parties’ two children to New Brunswick for her continuing education, and for sole decision-making responsibility.

The father opposed the relocation and sought joint decision-making and continued parenting time.

The court reviewed the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act, the history of parenting, the impact of relocation, and the reasonableness of the mother’s proposal.

The court denied the mother’s application to relocate, finding the plan would sever the children’s relationship with their father and was not fully developed.

The court ordered the parties to continue with the interim parenting schedule until August 1, 2025, after which the father must exercise parenting time outside the mother’s home, and directed the parties to meet with a mediator to develop a new schedule.

The decision addresses a motion for the immediate sale of a jointly owned cottage property in the context of ongoing family law proceedings.

The applicant mother sought the sale, while the respondent father opposed until equalization of net family property was resolved.

The court also considered reimbursement for post-separation and education expenses, and the need for business valuations.

The court ordered the mother to complete business valuations, granted interim reimbursement to the father for certain expenses, and ordered the immediate sale of the cottage, setting out a process for appraisal and sale.

The decision resolves an application for directions in the administration of the estate of Prema Raddalgoda.

The applicant, Sidath Raddalgoda, sought orders for occupation rent, reimbursement of legal fees, directions regarding renovation expenses, and removal of his brother, Malsiri Raddalgoda, as co-Estate Trustee.

The court found that Malsiri Raddalgoda’s conduct delayed and prejudiced the administration of the estate, ordered him to pay occupation rent and legal fees, required documentation for renovation expenses, and removed him as co-Estate Trustee.

The court also addressed costs, awarding fixed costs to the applicant.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a motion regarding the choice of school for the parties’ teenage children.

The respondent father, having succeeded on the motion, sought full recovery costs.

The court found the applicant mother’s conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith, and awarded the father elevated but not full recovery costs, fixing the amount at $4,000 inclusive of HST.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law trial between Christine Anonby and Erik Anonby.

The court finds the mother was the successful party on the primary parenting issue and partially successful on property issues.

The court awards the mother $85,000 in costs, finding her billings reasonable and the father’s litigation conduct not unreasonable except for the division of chattel.

The decision reviews the legal framework for costs in family law, the conduct of the parties, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to amend a temporary parenting order, seeking supervised parenting time for the father due to his alleged incitement of the children to make abuse allegations against her and her new husband.

The court found the matter urgent, determined that the father's conduct constituted emotional harm to the children, and ordered supervised in-person and virtual parenting time for the father, with the mother retaining decision-making responsibility.

The court also ordered disclosure of police and CAS records and set out a process for further proceedings and costs.

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the Attorney General of Canada's successful motion to strike the plaintiff's claim.

The court considered the reasonableness of the hours and rates claimed, the complexity and importance of the issues, and the conduct of the parties.

The court found the hours claimed by the Attorney General to be excessive and awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $8,468.

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum and entitlement to costs following the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim for delay.

The Defendant, John Akpata, sought costs after successfully striking the Plaintiff’s claim.

The court considered the conduct of the parties, offers to settle, the reasonableness of the costs claimed, and the Plaintiff’s ability to pay.

The court fixed costs at $19,000, finding this amount fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant mother sought a parenting order and child support for their 22-month-old child in an uncontested trial.

The respondent father failed to file an Answer and did not attend the hearing, leading to a default.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with the father's parenting time at the mother's discretion due to past issues.

The court imputed minimum wage income to the father for child support, rejecting the mother's higher speculative imputation, and ordered ongoing support and annual income disclosure.

No retroactive child support or costs were sought or awarded.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for the defendants' failure to pay the outstanding principal, interest, and fees for a mortgage loan.

The defendants, self-represented, failed to file defence materials or meet deadlines, and their request for an adjournment was denied.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendants breached the mortgage terms, entitling the plaintiff to the outstanding debt, interest, fees, and possession of the property.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This family law trial decision addresses parenting and property claims following a 21-year marriage.

The court determined the best interests of the two youngest children (L.A., 17, and F.A., 15), both on the autistic spectrum.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making for education and autism-related therapies, while the father sought shared parenting.

The court found a history of intimate partner violence by the father and his continued lack of insight into the emotional impact of his actions.

The mother was deemed the primary caregiver, highly attuned to the children's special needs, and the children expressed a clear preference for more time with her.

The court granted the mother primary residence, sole decision-making for education and autism-related programming/therapies, and joint decision-making with final authority to the mother on other issues.

The father was granted alternative weekend and one alternate weeknight parenting time.

On property claims, the mother was attributed $7,000 in pre-marital savings, and the father's extensive request for reconciliation of household goods was largely dismissed as unreasonable.

The defendants moved for an order to strike the action brought by the plaintiffs and for partial indemnity costs.

The grounds for the motion were the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a prior court order requiring them to appoint new counsel or serve a notice of intention to represent themselves, and their failure to set down the matter for trial within six months after the close of pleadings.

The plaintiffs failed to file a response or attend court.

The court granted the defendants' motion, striking the action and dismissing it for delay, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants.