Raphael Jacob Feldstein

Accused charged with causing a disturbance and assaulting a peace officer sought a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 11(b) of the Charter on the basis that her right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The overall delay was 718 days.

After deducting 99 days of defence-caused delay attributable to failure to retain counsel, obtaining instructions, counsel unavailability for judicial pre-trial, and a partial attribution of unavailability for continuation dates, the net delay was 619 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling by 71 days.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances, as the case was routine and straightforward, lacking the hallmarks of complexity, and the Crown had not developed a concrete plan to minimize delay occasioned by any alleged administrative complexity.

L'appel porte sur une ordonnance rendue en vertu de l'article 117.05 du Code criminel interdisant à Liberty Valance de posséder des armes à feu et ordonnant la confiscation de ses armes.

L'appelant, auto-représenté, conteste la décision de la juge de paix, notamment le fait que l'audience ait eu lieu en son absence.

La Cour supérieure de justice de l'Ontario conclut que la juge de paix a exercé correctement son pouvoir discrétionnaire en refusant l'ajournement et en procédant ex parte, et rejette l'appel.

The Crown appealed a sexual assault sentence but failed to perfect the appeal by missing deadlines for filing materials.

The Crown sought an adjournment, which the respondent opposed, requesting dismissal and costs.

The court denied the adjournment, dismissed the appeal due to the Crown's lack of diligence and non-compliance with rules, and declined to award costs against the Crown.

The defendant, Alain Godard, was charged with assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement.

The trial focused on the complainant's testimony, which the court found to have significant reliability and credibility issues due to memory gaps, demonstrably inaccurate recollections, and admitted lies under oath in prior proceedings.

The court also ruled on the Crown's application to lift a publication ban, granting it at the complainant's request.

The defendant was found not guilty on all three charges due to reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's evidence.

Procès criminel pour des infractions sexuelles alléguées contre une enfant de moins de 16 ans, y compris des attouchements sexuels et le fait d’avoir rendu accessible du matériel sexuellement explicite.

Le tribunal a évalué la crédibilité et la fiabilité de la jeune plaignante en tenant compte de son âge, de son développement et des incohérences non significatives dans ses diverses déclarations.

La preuve vidéo admise sous l’article 715.1 du Code criminel, ainsi que certains éléments de corroboration factuelle, ont convaincu le tribunal hors de tout doute raisonnable pour la majorité des chefs.

L’accusé a été déclaré coupable des chefs 2, 3, 4 et 5, mais non coupable du chef 1 en raison d’une preuve ambiguë sur le contact allégué avec le pénis.

The accused, V.J.L., was charged with two counts of sexual assault involving two complainants, A.G. and J.P. The Crown sought to introduce similar fact evidence, but the court found J.P.'s testimony unreliable due to intellectual challenges and inconsistencies, precluding the admission of similar fact evidence.

Applying the principles from R. v. WD, the court assessed the credibility of both complainants and the accused.

A.G. was found to be a credible and reliable witness, and the accused's denial regarding her assault was deemed improbable.

Consequently, V.J.L. was found guilty of sexually assaulting A.G. However, due to the unreliability and inconsistencies in J.P.'s evidence, the court found it unsafe to convict on the second count, leading to an acquittal for the alleged assault on J.P.

The accused faced a 20-count indictment alleging historical sexual offences against children at a residence in Montreal and at a campground trailer.

The court assessed the evidence count by count, accepted some complainant evidence as credible and reliable, rejected the accused's denial, and found that several counts were not proved because of evidentiary gaps concerning specific elements, age, or reliability.

The court held that s. 171(a) of the Criminal Code requires proof that the children were knowingly permitted to be on the premises for the purpose of sexual activity, and acquitted on those counts.

The court also amended one count under s. 601 to correct the time period and entered convictions on eight counts.

The appellant, previously convicted of sexual assault, appealed the conviction arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the appellant, and misapplied the principles from R. v. W. (D).

The appeal court reviewed the stringent standard for appellate intervention based on misapprehension of evidence.

It found that the trial judge's assessment of credibility, including addressing inconsistencies and finding corroboration, was supported by the evidence and within the appropriate range.

The court concluded that the trial judge properly applied legal principles and did not misapprehend material evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.

The accused, a practicing lawyer, pled guilty to assault after a street altercation involving mutual racial slurs and spitting, during which he threw the first punch and bit off a portion of the victim's ear lobe.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and criminal record, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with six months of probation, emphasizing the devastating collateral consequences the accused had already suffered to his career and the principle of parity, given that the other combatants received no criminal convictions.

The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to comply with an approved screening device breath demand under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge found that the accused intentionally failed to provide a proper breath sample despite repeated instructions.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, misplaced the onus of proof regarding proper operation of the device, and misapprehended expert evidence concerning the effects of blocking the device’s exhaust vent.

The appeal court held that although the reasons were sufficient, the trial judge misapprehended the expert evidence and incorrectly concluded that it did not align with the officers’ testimony.

This misapprehension was material to the finding that the accused feigned attempts to provide a breath sample and therefore refused the demand.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and failing or refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop on Highway 10 in Orangeville in the early morning hours of January 12, 2012.

The Crown alleged the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol and that he refused to comply with a valid breath demand.

The defendant denied impairment and claimed he sought only to delay the breath test until he could speak with his chosen counsel.

The court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court rejected the defendant's Charter arguments regarding denial of counsel, arbitrary detention, and lost video evidence.

The accused brought an application to strike his guilty pleas to sexual assault and failure to appear.

The accused pleaded guilty on April 11, 2014, after receiving new disclosure moments before trial.

The court found that the accused, who suffered from attention deficit disorder, dyslexia, and a borderline IQ, did not fully understand the plea procedure or his legal options despite appearing articulate.

The new allegations created time pressure to accept a plea bargain.

The court granted the application, finding a real doubt as to the validity of the plea, and permitted the accused to strike his plea and re-elect to his original mode of trial.

The defendant was charged with assault and breach of probation arising from an incident on January 22, 2014, involving his common law spouse.

The Crown alleged the defendant assaulted the complainant in the basement laundry room after she refused to return his car keys when he was intoxicated.

The defendant claimed the injuries resulted from a mutual struggle and accidental contact.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. test and found the complainant's evidence clear, reliable, and corroborated by physical evidence, while the defendant's evidence was evasive and self-serving.

The court convicted the defendant of both assault and breach of the probation order's term to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, though it found the choking allegation was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of eighty milligrams percent contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging that his right to have a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The overall delay from the swearing of the information on September 5, 2013 to the second scheduled trial date on November 6, 2014 was approximately fourteen months.

The court found that institutional and Crown delay totaled approximately ten months and twenty-five days, with significant delay attributable to late disclosure.

The accused established actual prejudice, as he was caring for his wife who had been paralyzed in an accident on the same day he was charged.

The court found that the delay, exacerbated by the real prejudice, was excessive and offended section 11(b) of the Charter, and ordered a judicial stay of proceedings.

Four young persons pleaded guilty to assault offences stemming from a brutal, unprovoked attack on two victims at a sweet sixteen party on July 29, 2012.

Z.N. wielded a machete and inflicted the most serious injuries, including a deep gash to one victim's neck exposing the spine.

The other three young persons participated in the assault through punching, kicking, and one carried a knife.

The court imposed custodial sentences with probation, with Z.N. receiving the longest sentence due to his role as the primary assailant.

The court applied Youth Criminal Justice Act principles, emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration while considering each young person's individual circumstances and degree of culpability.