P. Singh

This decision addresses an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code by the defendants to admit evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The complainant testified she was plied with drugs and alcohol and procured for sexual services.

The defendants sought to introduce cellphone location data showing the complainant at hotels providing sexual services independently prior to meeting them.

The court found the evidence relevant to challenge the procurement claim and that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to restrictions on salacious details.

The application was allowed, permitting cross-examination on these activities.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a 3.5-year custodial sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts, employment, and family responsibilities as mitigating factors against the aggravating factors of trafficking fentanyl for profit and a prior record.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

Following a six-day trial, the accused was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault, one count of assault, and one count of criminal harassment.

The court imposed a global sentence of seven years imprisonment, considering aggravating factors such as the brutal, invasive, and degrading nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim due to cocaine addiction, and the profound impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of criminal record, consistent employment, and family support.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing principles, while also applying the principle of totality.

The accused, Mahir Diabas, was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, assault, and criminal harassment.

The trial involved conflicting testimonies from the complainant and the accused.

The court found the complainant to be a reliable and credible witness, despite prior inconsistencies and recantation letters, accepting her explanations for these as plausible and candid.

Conversely, the accused was deemed an evasive, unresponsive, and unreliable witness, with his denials and explanations lacking credibility.

Applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.), the court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts except one (failing to comply with recognizance), which was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.