Robin Prihar

The defendant was charged with nine criminal offences, including uttering threats, criminal harassment, and breaching bail orders, against his former spouse and her mother.

The court assessed witness credibility and circumstantial evidence, applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty of four counts (contact contrary to a release order, uttering threats to the complainant, criminal harassment, and uttering threats to the complainant's mother) and acquitted of five counts due to insufficient proof of authorship of certain social media messages or lack of evidence regarding specific release orders.

The defendant, Jonathan Williams, was found guilty by a jury of harbouring a person to facilitate the sale of sexual services (s. 286.3 Criminal Code) and receiving financial benefit from the commission of such an offence (s. 286.2 Criminal Code).

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, while the defendant requested an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence in human trafficking cases, which are considered inherently violent and exploitative.

The judge imposed a concurrent sentence of 28 months for harbouring and 20 months for receiving financial benefit, along with a three-year no-contact order and a DNA order.

The court considered mitigating factors such as the defendant being a first-time offender with strong community support and low risk of re-offending, but found the aggravating factors, including exploitation of trust and control over the victim's sexual services, to be more compelling.

The accused, Jude Egwu, was arrested for sexual assault and gave a statement to police after invoking his right to counsel.

His lawyer, a casual friend practicing family and immigration law, provided no legal advice regarding his right to silence or self-incrimination.

A blended voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the statement.

The court found that while the police complied with s. 10(b) Charter, the lawyer's complete failure to provide advice, coupled with the accused's lack of comprehension of the primary police caution, created a fundamental unfairness in the interrogation process.

Although not a Charter violation attributable to the state, the court exercised its common law power under s. 24(1) of the Charter to exclude the portion of the accused's statement where he became evasive and conspicuously dodged questions about having sex with the complainant, as its admission would infect the appearance of a fair trial.

The appellant, Salim Mohamad, appealed his sentence of 16 months custody for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately consider his post-conviction diagnosis of schizophrenia and its impact on sentencing, and erred in finding premeditation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the appellant's mental illness and its treatment, and that the finding of premeditation was supported by the evidence.

The court affirmed that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount sentencing principles, and a conditional sentence was insufficient given the serious nature of the offence.

The applicant sought bail pending his appeal of a sexual assault conviction and a 15-month sentence.

While the applicant met the criteria for showing the appeal was not frivolous and that he would surrender into custody, the court found his detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court noted the applicant's recent diagnoses of severe mental health issues and subsequent charges for attempted murder and assault while on bail.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed, but the court ordered the appeal hearing to be expedited.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, challenging his detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to significant trial delay and the introduction of new, more vigilant sureties (the applicant's sister and grandmother).

On the secondary ground, despite the seriousness of the charges (robbery with a firearm, arson, mischief) and rising gun violence, the court was satisfied the applicant discharged his onus, considering his lack of prior violent convictions, physical disability from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and the strict house arrest plan.

On the tertiary ground, the court weighed the applicant's positive COVID-19 diagnosis amidst an outbreak at the detention centre, along with his youth, lack of convictions, physical disability, and the prospect of pre-trial custody approaching a potential sentence, concluding that public confidence would not be undermined by his release.

Bail was granted with stringent conditions, and the court explicitly removed "keep the peace and be of good behaviour" and "follow rules of the home" conditions, citing R. v. Zora on principles of restraint and judicial oversight of bail terms.

Mr. Amiri applied for certiorari to quash an information charging him with failing to comply with a bail order.

He argued that cc'ing his wife on emails to her lawyer, sent for the purpose of discussing settlement of a family matter, constituted communication "in the presence of legal counsel" and thus did not violate his bail condition.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the laying of the information did not constitute legal or jurisdictional error, and that the issue was a trial matter.

The court also noted the Supreme Court's guidance in R. v. Zora on the subjective intent required for bail breaches and the "over criminalization" of such charges, suggesting the case might be appropriate for a judicial referral hearing under s. 523.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused were charged with robbery, pointing and discharging a firearm, and in one case, breaching bail conditions, arising from an incident at a bar in Mississauga on October 9, 2019.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the identification evidence of the victim, who gave inconsistent statements to police and at trial.

The court admitted the victim's prior police statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule based on procedural reliability.

However, the court found that the victim's evidence contained significant inconsistencies regarding the timing and circumstances of the alleged shooting, and that video evidence did not support her account.

The court concluded that the victim's evidence could not safely carry the whole weight of the Crown's case and acquitted both accused on all charges.

The accused was charged with obstruct justice, intimidation of a witness, criminal harassment, and mischief based on allegations made by his mother.

The investigating officer grossly overstated and falsified the mother's allegations in the bail synopsis, leading to the accused being held in custody for three nights before being released on bail.

The accused brought an application to stay the proceedings for abuse of process.

The court found that the police conduct in falsifying the allegations and overholding the accused constituted an arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter and an abuse of process in the residual category.

The court also found that the interviewing officer violated the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel by disparaging his lawyer.

The proceedings were stayed.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged breach of his Charter right under section 11(b) to be tried within a reasonable time.

The trial was scheduled to conclude on January 8, 2021, which would be 18 months and 7 days from the commencement of proceedings on July 1, 2019, exceeding the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in Jordan.

The applicant demonstrated no defence delay and made sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, particularly regarding the complainant's unavailability due to high school examinations, which was foreseeable given the nature of the charges.

The court found the Crown fell short of its obligations to anticipate scheduling problems and take reasonable steps to avoid them.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The applicant, Jehroomien Rajendram, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, challenging his detention by a Justice of the Peace on secondary and tertiary grounds.

He argued legal errors in the initial detention and, alternatively, a material change in circumstances due to a new supervision plan and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no legal error in the Justice of the Peace's assessment of the sureties or the supervision plan.

Regarding the material change, the court acknowledged the new sureties and enhanced electronic monitoring but found them insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of reoffending, given the serious allegations (discharging a firearm, breaching prior orders, threatening text messages) and the applicant's criminal record.

While acknowledging the enhanced risk of COVID-19 in prisons, the court concluded it did not tip the scale in favor of release, especially as the applicant had no pre-existing medical conditions and there was no significant outbreak at the correctional facility.

The application for bail review was denied.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to his four-month-old infant daughter.

The Crown's case was based primarily on circumstantial evidence, including medical evidence of a skull fracture, four rib fractures, and a metatarsal fracture.

The accused initially provided a false explanation for the skull fracture (a fall from a change table) and later suggested to the child's mother that he may have caused injuries through a medical exercise.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove exclusive opportunity and that the medical evidence could not establish when the injuries occurred.

The court found that while the accused did not have exclusive opportunity to cause the injuries, and while the evidence was circumstantial, there remained reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown charged two defendants with aggravated assault of a family member who sustained extensive facial bruising, stitches, and two significant fractures to her orbital bone on December 2, 2017.

The complainant gave two irreconcilable accounts: initially reporting a violent attack by both defendants to medical staff and police, then recanting at trial and claiming she had tripped and fallen down the stairs.

The court admitted the complainant's prior police statement under the KGB doctrine and found it more credible than her trial testimony.

However, the court concluded that while the evidence was highly suspicious of guilt and probably showed the assault occurred, the absence of independent corroborating evidence combined with the complainant's demonstrated willingness to fabricate evidence and her motive to do so created a reasonable doubt.

Both defendants were acquitted.

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.

M.H. was charged with common assault, uttering a death threat, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement stemming from an incident where he allegedly returned to the complainant A.A.'s apartment after consensual group sex, confined her, assaulted her, threatened her, and sexually assaulted her.

The court found A.A. generally credible despite inconsistencies and delayed reporting, and found I.K., a defence witness, not credible due to bias.

M.H.'s post-offence conduct (deleting contacts) was considered evidence of consciousness of guilt.

M.H. was found guilty of common assault, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement, but acquitted of uttering a death threat due to conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the threat.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to provide a breath sample in response to an approved screening device demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

Following a routine vehicle stop for suspected impaired driving, the defendant made four attempts to provide a breath sample but appeared to make no genuine effort to blow into the device.

After being warned of the consequences, the defendant expressly refused to provide a sample.

The court found the defendant guilty, accepting the officer's evidence over the defendant's testimony that he had made genuine efforts but was physically unable to comply due to being handcuffed.

The court also found that the defendant had been unlawfully handcuffed during the breath testing process, violating section 9 of the Charter, but admitted the evidence under section 24(2) as the seriousness of the breach was attenuated by the officer's junior status and imperfect legal knowledge at the time.

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.

The defendant was charged with committing an indecent act.

The Crown alleged that the defendant approached the complainant and her friend in a Tim Hortons coffee shop and exposed his penis.

The defendant admitted being present but denied exposing himself, claiming he sat down momentarily to clear his head from a prior confrontation.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, a police officer, and the defendant, as well as security camera footage.

The court found the complainant credible and rejected the defendant's account as implausible and contradicted by video evidence.

The defendant was convicted.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and assault with a weapon following a judge-alone trial.

The trial judge had found that the appellant struck the complainant with a doll, causing scratches.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge applied a lesser standard of proof and failed to provide sufficient reasons, specifically by failing to apply the second and third steps of the W.D. test.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the trial judge did not apply a lesser standard of proof, he failed to provide sufficient reasons explaining why he accepted the complainant's evidence despite unresolved discrepancies.

The court concluded the trial judge inadvertently treated the credibility assessment as a contest and failed to apply the third step of the W.D. test.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The accused, Freskela Malual, was charged with common assault, mischief, aggravated assault, and breach of probation arising from an altercation with her live-in partner, Gerald Annis.

The court found Annis's testimony unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies.

The Crown conceded an acquittal on the mischief charge due to shared property ownership.

The court acquitted Malual on the common assault charge due to insufficient evidence regarding the incident outside the bar.

For aggravated assault and breach of probation (possession of a knife), the court found reasonable doubt regarding intent and self-defence, concluding that the injuries could have been accidental or in self-defence against Annis's aggression.

Malual was acquitted on all counts.