Oslyn Lyndonna Braithwaite

The defendant, Hacar Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, brought an application to re-open his case after being found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

The application sought to introduce new eyewitness evidence from Kelly Farkas, who was present during the altercation but was not located prior to trial.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, considering admissibility, cogency, and due diligence.

Despite the proposed evidence being sparse, the court found it met the threshold for cogency and credibility, and that the defendant had demonstrated sufficient due diligence in attempting to locate the witness.

The application was granted, the finding of guilt was vacated, and the defence was permitted to call the new witness.

The complainant (J.N.) alleged sexual assault by her former family doctor, Romeo Tan, during a physical exam in May 2014.

J.N. had no memory of the incident for three and a half years until she read a newspaper article.

The defence argued the assault did not occur and highlighted inconsistencies in J.N.'s memory and the implausibility of the events.

The court found J.N. to be a sincere and credible witness but was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that her recovered memory was reliable, given her general poor memory, suggestibility, the delay in recollection, and the lack of independent corroboration.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant, Hacar Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation with the complainant, Mohamad Sulyman.

The incident occurred at Sulyman's apartment, involving a woman who was present.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting he acted in response to Sulyman slapping him and attempting to choke him.

The court found that while Sulyman initiated the physical contact with a slap, Rasheed's subsequent and prolonged assault, involving multiple punches that caused significant injuries, was not a reasonable or proportionate response and exceeded the bounds of self-defence.

The court largely accepted Sulyman's account of the events and rejected Rasheed's testimony regarding the extent of the force used against him and his response.

Rasheed was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a minor complainant over a period of approximately one year.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant and his younger sister, both under 18 years old, supported by video-recorded statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, noting the plausibility of the evidence, corroboration from the sister's testimony, and internal consistency with the narrative.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault, finding that the Crown had proven the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt, though the court could not establish that the touching commenced prior to the complainant's sixteenth birthday.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath sample evidence based on alleged breaches of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The accused argued that special circumstances existed due to language barriers and that the police failed to take appropriate measures to ensure meaningful comprehension of his rights.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, and that no special circumstances existed requiring additional language accommodations.

The Charter applications were dismissed.