Robert S. Richardson

This decision concerns a Gardiner hearing following S.M.'s guilty plea to two counts of sexual assault against his biological daughters, V.M. and M.G. The court reviews the evidence to determine aggravating facts, including the number, nature, and circumstances of the assaults.

The decision addresses the credibility and reliability of the complainants, the timing and location of the assaults, and the extent of family knowledge and disclosure.

The court finds the core details of the assaults proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite some inconsistencies in peripheral details, and concludes that the complainants did not collude or exaggerate their testimony.

Ahmad Hasan was charged with two counts of criminal harassment and three counts of breach of probation stemming from his public Facebook postings targeting a detective and a lawyer involved in his previous criminal cases, and for breaching a publication ban.

The court found that Hasan's conduct, including seeking personal information about the complainants and making derogatory remarks, constituted threatening and harassing behaviour.

The complainants' fears for their safety were deemed objectively reasonable given the context of Hasan's prior convictions and obsessive conduct.

The court found Hasan guilty on all five charges.

The applicant, Charles Mustard, charged with first-degree murder from a 1993 cold case, sought judicial interim release (bail) under s. 522(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed his release.

The court assessed the three grounds for detention under s. 515(10): primary (attendance in court), secondary (public protection), and tertiary (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice).

While the applicant satisfied the primary and secondary grounds, the tertiary ground was a significant consideration due to the gravity of the offence and the apparent strength of the Crown's DNA evidence.

However, the court also considered the applicant's age (65), health conditions (borderline diabetes, arthritis, hearing/eyesight loss), and the heightened risk of COVID-19 transmission in detention facilities.

Despite a "porous" release plan involving the Toronto Bail Program and a shelter, the court found that the public, properly informed of Charter values and the pandemic crisis, would not lose confidence in the administration of justice by granting bail.

The application for bail was granted with specific conditions.

During a murder trial, the accused sought to exclude an utterance made to a police officer at the scene and a videotaped statement made at the police station.

The court held that the utterance at the scene was voluntary and not the product of a detention, as the officer's question was a general inquiry.

However, the court excluded the videotaped statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police breached the accused's s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights by deliberately failing to advise him that his jeopardy had increased to manslaughter following the victim's death.

Mandeep Punia was charged with second-degree murder and Skinder Punia with accessory after the fact to murder.

The jury found Mandeep guilty of manslaughter and Skinder guilty of accessory to manslaughter.

This decision provides the judge's reasons for several trial rulings: (a) the effect of a registrar's error during peremptory challenges in jury selection, which was deemed procedural and saved by s. 643(3) of the Criminal Code; (b) the refusal to issue a Vetrovec warning for a crucial Crown witness (Supinder Litt) due to her non-unsavoury character, though a strong caution was given; (c) the refusal to give a Bero instruction regarding incomplete police recordings, as no deliberate failure to preserve evidence was found, but the jury was instructed that reasonable doubt could arise from the absence of evidence; and (d) the decision to leave the defence of provocation with the jury for Mandeep, finding an "air of reality" to the subjective element based on the totality of evidence, despite the defence not actively advancing it.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference arising from allegations that he sexually touched and propositioned a 15-year-old complainant on three occasions during the summer of 2013.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The defendant and his wife denied all allegations, and the defendant's niece provided corroborating evidence regarding one of the alleged incidents.

The court found material implausibilities in the complainant's account, particularly regarding her presence in the defendant's home on the evening of the Bellwoods Park incident and her return to the defendant's home on the Thanksgiving weekend despite prior negative experiences.

The court also found the defendant's niece to be a credible and persuasive witness whose evidence contradicted the complainant's account of the Canada Day weekend incident.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing assault therein, assault, and breach of recognizance.

The central issue was whether a causal nexus existed between the accused's chronic schizophrenia and his offending conduct.

Expert psychiatric evidence established that the accused's delusional beliefs regarding the victim were of delusional intensity and significantly drove his behaviour.

The court found the accused represented the lowest risk to community safety and imposed a suspended sentence with two years' probation, prioritizing rehabilitation over deterrence and denunciation.

Three defendants were charged with robbery with a firearm, break and enter, disguise with intent, possession of restricted firearms, and related offences arising from a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on witness testimony, circumstantial evidence including proximity of time and place, vehicle identification, and the testimony of an accomplice.

The defence called a young person who had pleaded guilty to the same incident, whose testimony was found to be perjurious and unreliable.

The court convicted all three defendants on the remaining charges, finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt their involvement in the robbery and their prior knowledge that firearms would be used.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, robbery, break and enter, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown's case rested primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a 20-year-old student who was abducted at gunpoint from outside his school, robbed of personal items and money, and driven to his home where the assailants attempted to enter.

The defence challenged the credibility of the complainant and the reliability of his identification of the accused, arguing the story was fanciful and improbable.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted his identification of the accused based on prior acquaintance, the name "Bala" (a shortened form of the accused's first name), and the circumstances of observation during the prolonged incident.

The accused was convicted on all charges except forcible confinement, which was stayed as it merged with the kidnapping conviction.