Remy Sansanwal

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault but subsequently brought an application to strike the plea prior to sentencing.

He argued the plea was involuntary due to the stress of being arrested on outstanding warrants and uninformed because he did not fully appreciate the immigration consequences, specifically the risk of deportation.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had the cognitive capacity to make a volitional choice and was explicitly warned by counsel and the court about potential immigration consequences but chose to proceed anyway.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the plea, concluding there was no miscarriage of justice.

The defendant was charged with impaired care and control of a conveyance and exceeding the legal blood alcohol concentration, along with a provincial offence for having open liquor in a motor vehicle.

The central issue was whether the defendant was in "care and control" of the vehicle for the criminal charges.

The court found that the defendant successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of care and control by demonstrating he did not intend to drive.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove actual care and control beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no realistic risk of danger from the stationary vehicle or that the defendant would change his mind and drive.

Consequently, the criminal charges were dismissed, but the defendant was found guilty of the provincial offence.

The two accused were charged with multiple offences, including aggravated assault, robbery, and attempted murder, following a violent altercation captured on video surveillance.

The court found the Crown proved the identity of the larger suspect.

The primary accused was convicted of assault, assault by choking, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault, as his self-defence claim was rejected due to disproportionate force.

The co-accused was convicted of assault, assault by choking, and assault with a weapon as a party, but acquitted of aggravated assault due to evidence of abandonment.

Both were acquitted of robbery and attempted murder.

This ruling addresses a Leaney application by the Crown to admit a police officer's opinion evidence regarding the identity of the accused from surveillance video footage.

The court applied the "prior acquaintance/better position" test, finding the officer sufficiently familiar with one accused (Siddiqui) to offer an opinion.

The application was granted for high-quality video footage from a school portable but denied for poor-quality video from the East York Town Centre, emphasizing that video quality is a crucial factor for admissibility of recognition evidence.

The accused, charged with robbery and aggravated assault, sought an adjournment of their trial due to outstanding disclosure, specifically facial recognition software results and an officer's memo book notes regarding identification.

The Crown opposed a full adjournment, proposing to start the trial with other witnesses.

The court balanced the accused's fair trial rights with the need to control the trial process.

The court ruled that the trial would commence with the lead investigator and complainant, allowing the defence to recall the investigator once the missing disclosure was provided, and delaying the identifying officer's testimony until his notes were disclosed.

The defendant, a club promoter, was charged with multiple counts of sexual interference and sexual assault involving two underage complainants.

The central issues at trial were the credibility of the witnesses, the defendant's assertion of the mistake of age defence for the sexual interference charges, and the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent for the sexual assault charges.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence, finding he was wilfully blind or reckless regarding the complainants' ages and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain their ages.

The court also rejected the defence of mistaken belief in consent, finding the defendant engaged in sexual acts without the complainants' consent.

The defendant was found guilty on all counts.