Neville Golwalla

The appellant, Imtiaz Bakhash, appealed his convictions for assault and threatening death, arguing the trial was unfair due to the trial judge's management, curtailing of cross-examination, and reliance on prior misconduct evidence.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge's extensive interventions, while well-intentioned to assist the self-represented accused, compromised the appearance of fairness by usurping defence counsel's function and forcing the disclosure of defence strategy.

The court also found that the trial judge's actions undermined the duty of confidentiality between court-appointed counsel and the accused, even if a full solicitor-client relationship did not exist.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

Walter Creglia appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and that his Charter rights were violated due to a lack of reasonable grounds for arrest.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's reasons for both dismissing the Charter motion and convicting on impaired driving were convoluted, difficult to understand, and failed to demonstrate a clear path to conviction by linking the evidence, law, and conclusions.

The court also noted the trial judge's irrelevant discussion of "care and control." Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered, as meaningful appellate review was not possible, and the curative proviso was deemed inapplicable.

The applicant, Christopher Goulbourne, sought a stay of criminal proceedings for serious offences (robbery, use of imitation firearm, breaking and entering) based on alleged Charter breaches under sections 7 and 24(1).

He claimed he was assaulted by court officers and that police failed to investigate the incident.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that the force used by correctional officers was reasonable and necessary given his disruptive and aggressive conduct.

The court also found no intentional or malicious failure to investigate, but rather a miscommunication.

Ultimately, the court concluded that no Charter breach occurred, and therefore no remedy, including a stay of proceedings, was warranted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five offences arising from a shooting incident: possession of a firearm without a licence, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, aggravated assault, reckless intentional discharge of a firearm, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The victim was shot in the face and suffered permanent scarring, disfigurement, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years, 10 months, and 7 days, after crediting 13.75 months of pre-trial detention.

The sentence reflected the serious nature of the offence, the defendant's significant criminal history, and aggravating factors including the public nature of the shooting and proximity to family members, while considering mitigating factors including the guilty plea, remorse, and Gladue considerations regarding the defendant's Aboriginal status and intergenerational trauma.

The defendant was found guilty of mischief for video recording women's buttocks at Woodbine Beach without consent and acquitted of voyeurism and criminal harassment.

At sentencing, the court imposed seven days intermittent incarceration and 24 months probation with conditions including non-attendance at Woodbine Beach and no contact with the victims.

The court rejected a conditional discharge despite mitigating factors, finding that the defendant's prior 2009 conditional discharge for identical conduct, combined with the significant impact on victims and the defendant's lack of insight, warranted a custodial sentence to protect the public interest and deter similar offences.

The defendant was charged with three offences arising from incidents on Woodbine Beach in Toronto: voyeurism, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The Crown presented evidence of similar conduct in 2010 and 2013, involving surreptitious filming of women's buttocks using a concealed camera with zoom capability.

The court admitted similar fact evidence to establish identity.

The voyeurism charge was dismissed because the Crown failed to prove the essential element of "for a sexual purpose" beyond a reasonable doubt.

The criminal harassment charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the defendant's actions caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety and concerns regarding the "watching or besetting" element.

The mischief charge resulted in a conviction, as the court found the defendant willfully interfered with the lawful enjoyment of public property.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter as a party to a shooting death committed by a co-accused.

The Crown sought a sentence of six to eight years, arguing the four-year mandatory minimum for manslaughter with a firearm applied.

The court found the offender did not know the co-accused had a gun and held that the mandatory minimum does not apply in such circumstances.

Weighing the offender's lack of prior record, strong prospects for rehabilitation, and lesser degree of responsibility against the gravity of the offence, the court imposed a sentence of four years (credited as time served) followed by two years' probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to counselling to make child pornography and counselling to transmit child pornography.

The Crown and defence reached a joint submission on sentence, but disagreed on whether a weapons prohibition under s. 110 of the Criminal Code was appropriate.

The court imposed a three-year weapons prohibition, finding that offences involving child pornography inherently constitute violence against persons within the meaning of s. 110(1)(a), and that the accused's conduct included implicit threats of sexual violence against children.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault, sexual touching of a child under fourteen, forcible confinement, and threatening death.

The offences involved a violent sexual assault against a very young child in a private residence, accompanied by physical restraint and threats intended to silence the victim.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence as paramount in cases involving sexual offences against children, particularly where a position of trust existed.

After reviewing aggravating factors including the victim’s young age, the familial trust relationship, the violence involved, and the ongoing psychological harm to the victim and family, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

A global sentence of five years and three months’ imprisonment was ordered, with concurrent and consecutive components for the various offences.

In a judge‑alone criminal trial for sexual assault and related offences, the accused sought leave to adduce third‑party evidence contradicting aspects of the complainant’s testimony regarding unrelated childhood incidents.

The Crown objected on the basis of the collateral fact rule.

The court reviewed the scope of the collateral fact rule and its policy rationale, as well as recognized exceptions and the accused’s constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

The court held that the proposed evidence was sufficiently relevant to the reliability of the complainant’s disclosure and that its probative value outweighed potential prejudice or inefficiency.

Leave was granted to introduce the third‑party evidence.