Russell Silverstein

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault against his wife occurring between 2007 and 2013, as well as criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance in 2016.

The court accepted the wife's evidence regarding the historical assaults, finding the accused guilty on all assault counts.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of failing to comply with his recognizance, as alibi evidence raised a reasonable doubt about his presence at the wife's workplace on the date in question.

The court also acquitted the accused of criminal harassment, finding insufficient evidence that his conduct was intended to frighten or was reckless.

The accused was charged with six counts of assault on his wife occurring between 2007 and 2013, one involving a television remote control as a weapon, as well as criminal harassment in summer 2016 and failing to comply with a recognizance on September 9, 2016.

The case turned on credibility.

The Crown called only the complainant as a witness.

The accused testified and denied all allegations, providing an alibi for September 9, 2016.

The court found the complainant credible and rejected the accused's evidence.

The court convicted on all assault counts but acquitted on the fail to comply and criminal harassment charges, finding reasonable doubt regarding the accused's presence at the complainant's workplace on September 9, 2016.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm (x2), assault (x2), mischief to property, and failure to comply with a recognizance (x4).

The offences involved a pattern of violent and degrading abuse against his dating partner over several months, including physical assault, humiliation, property damage, and confinement.

The accused violated court-ordered conditions by continuing contact with the victim.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 17 months less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 10 months incarceration, followed by three years probation with strict conditions including no contact and counselling.

The accused was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance arising from an incident on February 11, 2017.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of the complainant, Angel Bryan.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony, admitted lies regarding the identity of a witness, and a prior conviction for attempted fraud.

Despite evidence of injuries and blood at the scene, the court concluded that the credibility problems and absence of corroborating evidence left reasonable doubt as to whether the assaults occurred.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and one count of threatening death against his estranged wife.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's testimony regarding two incidents approximately two weeks apart.

The accused testified in his own defence, denying the allegations and providing an alternative account of events.

The court found that the complainant's evidence was largely uncorroborated, while the accused's version received some corroboration from a defence witness.

After careful consideration of credibility and the totality of evidence, the court determined that the Crown had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from incidents on September 7, 2015: fraudulently obtaining beverages at a bar, threatening bodily harm to a patron, and assaulting another individual.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused fraudulently obtained beverages by ordering drinks, offering insufficient payment, and leaving without paying.

The accused was found guilty of threatening serious bodily harm after losing his temper and threatening to hit the patron with a chair and kick him in the ribs.

However, the assault charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused's assault on the victim's companion was committed as part of a common purpose to assault the victim or was an independent act of malice.

The accused was convicted after trial of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm following a stabbing incident at a bar.

The Crown sought 15-18 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence for assault with a weapon and a 15-month conditional sentence for assault causing bodily harm, to be served consecutively, along with a one-year probation term.

A weapons prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

The conviction for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace was stayed.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon (a chair) and assault causing bodily harm against his mother.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally struck his mother on the head with a chair, causing a gash requiring 10 stitches.

The accused claimed the injury was accidental, resulting from him dropping the chair from chest level.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, rejecting the defence of accident based on the credibility of the complainant and Crown witnesses, the accused's inconsistent statements, his post-incident behavior, and the circumstantial evidence of intent.

The accused was charged with threatening death to two individuals, assaulting one with a weapon, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The charges arose from an incident on March 19, 2017 at a residential property in Scarborough.

The Crown presented evidence from the alleged victims and supporting video and audio recordings.

The defence argued that the injuries were self-inflicted and that the allegations were fabricated.

The court found the Crown's evidence credible and corroborated by objective evidence, while finding the accused's testimony contradicted by video evidence and lacking credibility.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace following an altercation at a bar.

The accused admitted to stabbing the complainant with a knife but claimed self-defense.

The court found that while force was being used against the accused and the stabbing may have been intended for self-defense, the stabbing was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was the aggressor, initiated physical contact, was the first to draw and unsheathe his knife, and had multiple opportunities to de-escalate the conflict.

The court convicted on all three counts.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and threatening bodily harm arising from an alleged altercation on September 4, 2016.

The complainant suffered a significant incised wound to his left arm requiring over 60 stitches.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's identification of the accused as the perpetrator.

However, the complainant had initially provided police with a false identification, claiming an unknown black male was responsible, later recanting this account after speaking with his sister.

The court found the complainant's identification of the accused was rendered problematic by this initial false identification and was uncorroborated despite multiple witnesses present at the scene.

The court concluded that in the absence of supporting evidence and given the radically inconsistent statements regarding the perpetrator's identity, reasonable doubt existed as to whether the accused was responsible for the injuries.

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon (a flick knife) found during a police search of his pants pocket.

The accused brought an application to exclude the knife pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that it was obtained in violation of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police detention of the accused became unlawful when he was removed from the van without proper grounds, and that the accused was denied access to counsel of choice throughout his detention.

The court excluded the knife as evidence and dismissed the charge.