R. Singh

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (682.37 grams of 98% pure cocaine) and possession of property (cash of $30,733.00) obtained by crime.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less one day.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by 12 months of probation, finding that despite the serious nature of the offences and aggravating factors, the offender's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, rehabilitative efforts, difficult personal background, and positive character references warranted a community-based sentence.

The court emphasized that the offender was more than his error and that proportionality, individualization, and the unique circumstances of the case justified departure from the typical sentencing range.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and crack for the purpose of trafficking, and trafficking.

The case involved a Charter application to exclude evidence (drugs and shipment receipt) due to a s. 8 Charter violation by police for failing to file a timely Report to Justice.

The court found a s. 8 violation but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the Grant factors, noting the police conduct was negligent but not serious, and the impact on the defendant was minimal.

On the merits, the court found the defendant guilty of trafficking, concluding that he was the person who dropped off the package and knew its contents, or was wilfully blind, based on circumstantial evidence including fingerprints and suspicious shipping practices.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking after police found fentanyl mixtures hidden in his vehicle.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's ownership of the vehicle and documents found inside, to prove constructive possession.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as evidence showed multiple other individuals had access to and used the vehicle.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The defendant, Faisal Fareed, brought an application to exclude a loaded handgun from evidence, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that while the initial detention and seizure of the gun were lawful, there were breaches related to the delay in informing Fareed of the grounds for detention (s. 10(a)), and significant delays in implementing his right to counsel of choice (s. 10(b)).

Additionally, the police failed to file a report to a justice of the peace regarding the seized items, constituting a breach of section 8.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, particularly as the breaches occurred after the lawful seizure and did not impact the reliability of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

A child protection agency brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a six-year-old child.

The child's parents had been involved in protracted custody litigation in both Canada and the United States, including Hague Convention proceedings after the mother surreptitiously removed the child to the United States.

Following a U.S. court order returning the child to Canada, the child was placed in the father's care.

The court found that returning the child to the mother's care would effectively mean returning the child to the United States, posing a high risk of harm and loss of contact with the father.

The court ordered that the child be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father under the agency's supervision, finding it to be the least intrusive alternative consistent with the child's best interests.

The father brought an interim parenting motion seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residency of the parties' six-year-old child, with a specific concern that the mother had not enrolled the child in school.

The mother sought an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The court granted the adjournment for the broader parenting issues but decided the urgent issue of school attendance.

Finding that in-person schooling is presumed to be in a child's best interests and noting the child's need for socialization and speech therapy, the court granted the father temporary decision-making authority over education and ordered the child to be immediately enrolled in in-person learning.

The accused, a taxicab driver, was charged with second degree murder after running over an intoxicated passenger with his minivan.

The incident was captured on a residential surveillance camera.

The accused testified that he accidentally struck the victim while looking for oncoming traffic.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as irreconcilable with the video footage and internally illogical.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally drove his vehicle at the victim in anger and possessed the requisite mens rea for murder.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

The applicant husband brought a motion to supplant a previous consent order that established a process for valuing and buying out or selling the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was an unjustified attempt to alter a previous agreement.

The respondent wife generously agreed to allow the husband a second opportunity to obtain a proper valuation, which the court ordered to be completed by a set date.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondent wife.

The accused was charged with luring a child and exposing genitals for a sexual purpose.

The Crown alleged the accused sent explicit pictures and messages to the complainant, who was under 16, via Facebook.

The court found the accused guilty of luring a child, based on circumstantial evidence including the use of his known nickname and email, and post-offence conduct indicating an attempt to destroy evidence.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of exposing genitals, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the penis in the pictures was that of the accused.

The accused was charged with domestic assault and unlawful confinement arising from an incident on September 15, 2011 involving his wife.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, whose credibility and reliability were significantly undermined during cross-examination.

The accused's testimony was also found to be unconvincing.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

Following convictions at trial for multiple counts on an indictment, correspondence from a witness was sent to the trial judge after the verdict but prior to sentencing, alleging pressure relating to the witness’s testimony.

Counsel were invited to address whether the correspondence justified reopening the trial.

Applying the four-part test for reopening a criminal case after verdict, the court found the letter was unsworn, inconsistent with the witness’s sworn testimony, and not reasonably capable of belief.

The circumstances did not meet the stringent threshold required to reopen a concluded trial.

The trial was not reopened.