Paul Dhaliwal

During a criminal trial for assault, the prosecutor brought an application under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine their own witness (the complainant) on a prior inconsistent statement.

The defence argued the statement was unreliable due to the complainant's state at the time (medicated, alcohol consumed, sleep-deprived, emotional).

The court found patent inconsistencies between the trial testimony and the prior statement, inferred a possible motive for feigned memory loss, and determined that despite the complainant's condition, the statement was not so unreliable as to create unfairness.

The application was granted, allowing the prosecution to conduct a limited cross-examination.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the four-year-old child from Alberta to Ontario, following the respondent mother's unilateral relocation and breach of a prior undertaking to return the child to Ontario.

The court had previously confirmed jurisdiction in Ontario.

The mother's evidence regarding the child's safety and a new status quo was found to be contradictory and insufficient, as her actions constituted extreme self-help remedies.

The court emphasized that self-help would not be rewarded and that the child's best interests, including maintaining a relationship with both parents, necessitated the child's return to Ontario.

The motion for the child's return was granted, with specific orders for transfer of care and future parenting arrangements.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter following his conviction for sexual assault at a second trial.

The first trial ended in a mistrial declared by the judge due to scheduling issues.

The court found that the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling under the Jordan framework.

While the mistrial was an exceptional circumstance, the subsequent 9.5-month delay to schedule the second trial was largely systemic and unreasonable.

The court also found the accused suffered specific prejudice due to the delay.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' child to Ontario and disclosure of her address.

The respondent mother had taken the child to Mauritius, agreed to return her to Canada in a Hague Convention proceeding, but instead unilaterally relocated to Alberta.

The mother brought a cross-motion arguing Alberta was the proper jurisdiction.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act because the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario, as she was removed without consent and the father did not acquiesce.

The court ordered a Case Conference to determine the next steps.

The accused was charged with voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.

The Crown entered an acquittal for uttering threats.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant and the accused, finding the complainant generally credible and her account supported by physical evidence, while the accused's testimony was unreliable and intentionally dishonest on material issues.

The court found the accused guilty of voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's other discreditable conduct in a criminal trial for extortion, uttering threats, assault, sexual assault, and distributing an intimate image.

The proposed evidence included the accused's marital status, gambling problem, reputation for violence, and suicidal threats/attempts.

The court ruled on the admissibility of this evidence, applying the test for discreditable conduct.

The court found all proposed evidence admissible, including the suicide-related conduct, determining its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to appropriate jury instructions against propensity reasoning.

The accused, a commercial truck driver, pleaded guilty to importing 179.2 kilos of opium poppy heads (a Schedule 1 substance) across the Ambassador Bridge.

The accused absconded to India for several years before returning and entering a guilty plea.

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for the importation of a large quantity of a Schedule 1 substance.

The accused was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, reduced to 22 months to credit time spent on bail conditions.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against a child victim.

The Crown sought nine months imprisonment followed by two years probation, while the defence argued for a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a nine-month custodial sentence, finding that the offence involved multiple incidents of invasive sexual touching, a serious breach of trust, and had a devastating impact on the victim.

The court rejected the defence argument that the offender's age and health concerns justified a sentence at the mandatory minimum level, holding that such a sentence would be disproportionate and fail to adequately reflect the principles of deterrence and denunciation required for offences against children.

During a trial for drug importation, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to police following his arrest.

The accused made an initial statement in a police cruiser and a subsequent video-recorded statement at the police station.

The court found the cruiser statement involuntary due to an incomplete record and inducements offered by the officer.

Applying the derived confessions rule, the court also excluded the subsequent video statement, finding it was causally, temporally, and contextually connected to the first tainted statement.

The accused were tried before a judge alone on charges arising from a large-scale cocaine importation scheme involving approximately 112 kilograms of cocaine shipped from Guyana to Canada in a sea container.

The Crown alleged conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, relying on surveillance, intercepted communications, controlled delivery evidence, and admissions.

The court found that two of the accused knowingly participated in a conspiracy to import cocaine and later exercised possession of the drugs for trafficking purposes, based largely on circumstantial evidence and intercepted communications demonstrating knowledge, control, and shared financial interest in the shipment.

However, the court found insufficient evidence that any accused actually committed the offence of importing under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act because their involvement occurred after the drugs entered Canada.

Two accused were acquitted entirely due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge and participation.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to accepting and offering secret commissions (bribes) in relation to driving examinations at a DriveTest Centre in Oakville, Ontario.

The driving examiner accepted bribes from a driving school instructor to ensure that the instructor's students passed their Ministry of Transportation road examinations.

The scheme involved five prior corrupt transactions before discovery.

The court imposed custodial sentences, finding that the breach of public trust and risk to public safety necessitated imprisonment rather than conditional sentences, despite the offenders' lack of prior criminal records and expressions of remorse.

The defendant was charged with making a right turn not in safety contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a fatal collision with a pedestrian at the intersection of Torbram Road and Walker Drive in Brampton on December 1, 2010.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance videos, GPS tracking data, expert identification of the vehicle, and the defendant's own admissions to establish that the defendant was operating the transport truck that struck and killed the pedestrian.

The defendant argued that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the driver and that even if he was, he had exercised due diligence.

The court found that the Crown had proven the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant had failed to establish the defence of due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The defendant was convicted.