Neville Golwalla

On a pre-trial evidentiary motion in a murder prosecution, the court dismissed the defence application to exclude police statements for alleged breach of the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The court held the accused was repeatedly informed of his rights, understood the jeopardy he faced, and clearly waived immediate access to counsel in order to hear what the investigator had to say.

The court further held that the accused's denials and lies to police had some probative value as post-offence conduct relevant to rebutting a self-defence claim.

The statements were admissible, with the caveat that the jury would require limiting instructions as to the permissible use of that evidence.

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 possession of child pornography and possession of methamphetamine.

The child pornography collection was of moderate size and mostly in the middle range of severity.

The offender was a 52-year-old first-time offender with health issues.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 15 months' imprisonment for the child pornography charge and time served concurrently for the drug charge, followed by two years of probation and ancillary orders including a 10-year section 161 prohibition.

The accused was charged with possession, making, and making available child pornography, as well as possession of methamphetamine.

Following a search of his apartment, police seized hard drives and CDs containing child pornography, along with a small amount of crystal meth.

The court found the accused guilty of possessing the CDs containing child pornography and the methamphetamine.

However, the court acquitted the accused of making child pornography, holding that the Crown failed to prove he copied the files, and further ruling that merely copying child pornography does not constitute 'making' it under section 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

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.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, sexual touching, and uttering death threats against his seven-year-old nephew.

The complainant provided delayed and incremental disclosure of the abuse, culminating in a traumatic seizure-like episode where he spontaneously uttered fears about his uncle.

The court admitted expert evidence on child sexual abuse disclosure patterns and trauma symptoms.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's blanket denial and defence theories of fabrication.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

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.

In a trial for child sexual abuse, both the Crown and the defence brought applications to introduce expert testimony.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from a clinical psychologist regarding delayed disclosure and the relationship between sexual abuse and non-epileptic seizures.

The defence sought to introduce evidence from a cognitive psychologist on similar topics, as well as the effect of questioning techniques on children.

The court applied the Mohan test and ruled that both experts could testify on delayed disclosure and non-epileptic seizures, as this information was outside the normal experience of the trier of fact.

However, the court excluded the defence expert's proposed testimony on questioning techniques, finding it unnecessary as assessing credibility is within the court's expertise.

The accused, an apartment building superintendent, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and forcible confinement against a 12-year-old resident.

The case rested on a credibility contest between the complainant, the accused, and an adult witness who was supervising the complainant at the time of the alleged incident.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found that the adult witness's testimony, combined with the accused's denials, raised a reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's allegations.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.