Nicole Emma Cadman

This decision concerns a bail breach charge against Kit Wah Cheng for attending within 100 meters of his daughter’s and former partner’s residence, contrary to a bail condition.

The court carefully considered video surveillance evidence challenged by the accused on grounds of tampering and fabrication.

The judge found the evidence credible and probative, rejecting claims of manipulation or lawful excuse.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cheng breached his bail condition on June 15, 2024.

The court sentenced Dwaine Trapper Graham to nine years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, following a joint submission by Crown and defence.

Graham fatally stabbed Noran Leslie-Durrant with a broken golf club during an altercation.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, Graham’s background, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The sentence was reduced by credit for pre-trial custody and ordered to run concurrently with another sentence.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it within the appropriate range for such offences.

The accused, Azary Matanov, charged with sexual assault, brought a two-stage application under sections 278.93(1) and 278.94 of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of certain evidence (text messages, a selfie, a phone call, and a kiss) at trial.

The evidence was sought to provide context to the relationship with the complainant and to challenge her credibility.

The court granted the Stage One application, finding the evidence capable of being admissible, and subsequently granted the Stage Two application, finding the evidence admissible.

The court emphasized that in a judge-alone trial, the risk of improper use of evidence is diminished, and the probative value of the evidence for context and credibility outweighed any potential prejudicial effect, without engaging "twin myth" reasoning.

Krsna Singh was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample.

Police responded to a Crimestoppers tip about an impaired driver, located the vehicle at Singh's residence, and made an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand, which Singh refused.

Singh challenged the lawfulness of his detention and the ASD demand, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 9 (arbitrary detention), 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found no Charter violations, distinguishing the case from R. v. McColman by noting the police had reasonable grounds to suspect impaired driving based on the specific tip.

The court also found the police acted within their ancillary powers and that Singh was promptly informed of his detention reasons and that his right to counsel was not violated, as he was released as soon as practicable.

Consequently, the court found Singh guilty of the offence.