Sandip Khehra

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence in the manslaughter trial of Sean O’Rourke, an O.P.P. constable.

The defence sought to call Dr. Laurence Miller, a psychologist, to opine on neuropsychological reactions to stress and memory.

The court found the evidence neither necessary nor relevant, holding that the trier of fact could assess the issues without expert assistance.

The ruling reviews the necessity threshold for expert evidence and applies appellate guidance, ultimately excluding the proposed testimony.

The court considered whether Constable Sean O’Rourke’s use of his firearm, which resulted in the death of Nicholas Grieves during an attempted arrest, constituted the unlawful act of careless use of a firearm and thus supported a conviction for manslaughter.

After a detailed review of the evidence, including expert testimony and the circumstances of the incident, the court found that O’Rourke’s actions were reasonable and consistent with police training and policy.

The discharge of the firearm was found to be a tragic accident, not a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The charge of manslaughter was dismissed.

The applicant, N.R., sought to set aside a guilty verdict for sexual assault and incest, requesting a mistrial due to alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, or alternatively, to reopen the trial to admit fresh DNA evidence.

The court dismissed both applications.

The claim of ineffective assistance was rejected as the court found N.R. failed to prove his counsel prevented him from testifying, accepting counsel's evidence that the decision was N.R.'s.

The fresh evidence application was dismissed because the new DNA reports lacked credibility, were inadmissible, and would not have affected the trial outcome, as the conviction was primarily based on the complainant's testimony.

The offender pleaded guilty to accessing child pornography.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence due to exceptional rehabilitative efforts and strong family support.

The court, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with electronic monitoring and house arrest, followed by three years of probation, a DNA order, a 10-year SOIRA order, and specific internet use restrictions.

Maneet Bajwa was convicted of six gun-related offences, primarily trafficking firearms.

The sentencing hearing addressed the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 99(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that a fit sentence would be 12 months, and the three-year mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate, thus violating s. 12 of the Charter.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, with credit for pre-sentence custody, to be served in the community, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after purchasing two Glock handguns and transferring them to an unauthorized individual.

At trial, she admitted the facts but raised the defence of duress, claiming she was threatened by two masked men who demanded she buy the guns.

The court rejected her evidence as illogical and found that, even if believed, she had a safe avenue of escape and there was no close temporal connection between the threat and the harm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicant and a co-accused were jointly charged with firearms offences.

The applicant brought a motion to sever her trial from her co-accused so that she could call him as a witness to support her defence.

The applicant offered significant procedural concessions, including re-electing a judge-alone trial and admitting the Crown's case, to ensure both trials could be completed within the originally scheduled time.

The court granted the severance motion, finding that the interests of justice favoured separate trials given the lack of prejudice to the Crown and the preservation of court resources.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control and refusing to provide breath samples.

The impaired count was withdrawn on the first day of trial.

The Crown proceeded on the refusal charge.

The central issue was whether a police officer lawfully entered the accused's residence to conduct an impaired investigation.

The officer attended the accused's residence after receiving a dispatch regarding a possible drunk driver.

Upon arrival, the officer observed the accused at the front door and testified that the accused invited him inside.

The accused denied issuing an invitation.

The court found that while the officer's documentation was deficient, his testimony regarding the invitation was credible and unrebutted by the accused's discredited testimony.

The court held that the entry was lawful based on the accused's invitation and that the Crown met its burden on a balance of probabilities.

The conviction for refusing to provide breath samples was entered.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit of 80 mg/100 ml of blood.

The Crown obtained breath readings of 140 and 130 mg/100 ml.

The defence sought to exclude these readings under sections 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found no breach of section 10(b) rights regarding the delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel.

However, the court found a breach of section 9 rights due to an unjustified six-hour overholding of the accused.

The court determined the breath readings were obtained in a manner that violated the Charter and excluded them under section 24(2), resulting in dismissal of the charge.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and refusal to provide a breath sample.

He brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence under sections 8, 9, and 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him.

The trial proceeded by blended hearing on two issues: whether the arrest and demand for a breath sample were lawful, and whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the totality of circumstances, dismissed the Charter motion, and found the defendant guilty of refusal to provide a breath sample.

However, the court acquitted the defendant on the impairment charge, finding insufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused pleaded guilty to six charges of voyeurism, mischief, and unlawfully in a dwelling house.

The offences involved the surreptitious videotaping and photographing of multiple female victims in various settings, including public places, workplaces, and private residences.

The accused had a prior conviction for voyeurism in 2011 and was assessed as a moderate risk for sexual recidivism.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence, rejecting a conditional sentence despite defence submissions, emphasizing the need for denunciation, specific deterrence, and general deterrence.

The court also imposed a three-year probation order with strict conditions, including no contact with victims, restrictions on electronic devices, and mandatory participation in treatment programs.

The accused pleaded guilty to six charges of voyeurism, mischief, and unlawfully in a dwelling house.

The offences involved the surreptitious videotaping and photographing of multiple victims, including coworkers, a family friend, and a sister-in-law, in various states of undress.

The accused had a prior conviction for voyeurism in 2011 and had received treatment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, yet resumed voyeuristic behaviour within a month of his probation ending.

A forensic psychiatric assessment found the accused to be at moderate risk for sexual recidivism.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months, less six months credit for pre-trial custody and stringent bail conditions, resulting in 12 months to be served.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite defence submissions, finding that the safety of the community could not be assured and that denunciation and specific deterrence required incarceration.

The accused was charged with one count of over 80 (impaired driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood) arising from a motor vehicle accident on January 30, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence of an overturned vehicle, police observations of alcohol odour, a failed approved screening device, and breath test readings of 190 and 180 milligrams.

The defence raised the issue of post-driving bolus drinking, arguing that the accused consumed alcohol after the accident while walking to seek assistance.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding post-driving consumption to be internally inconsistent and undermined by statements made to police.

However, the court ultimately found reasonable doubt based on the toxicologist's evidence that the accused's drinking pattern (one beer before driving, followed by post-driving consumption of mini bottles and a mickey of liquor) would be consistent with zero blood alcohol at the time of driving if the accident occurred at midnight.

The accused was acquitted.

A police officer with 14 years of service pleaded guilty to breach of trust and careless storage of a firearm.

The Crown sought 12 months imprisonment plus probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court found exceptional mitigating circumstances including severe alcohol addiction, emotional abuse by a partner, unresolved grief from a parent's death, and a sleep disorder.

The officer had undergone significant rehabilitation post-arrest, including residential treatment, weekly AA attendance, and psychotherapy.

Despite the serious nature of breaching a position of trust, the court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation and 150 hours community service, recognizing that the officer's conduct was entirely out of character and driven by addiction rather than corruption or venality.

The defendant was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The defendant challenged the breath test results on Charter grounds, arguing violations of sections 8 and 9 (unreasonable search and seizure and arbitrary detention).

The court found that the officer reasonably relied on the defendant's statement that he had consumed alcohol 40 minutes earlier, despite the strong odour of alcohol on his breath.

The court also found that the officer was authorized under the Highway Traffic Act to stop and detain the defendant for a sobriety check, and that the detention was not arbitrary.

The motion to exclude evidence was dismissed and the defendant was found guilty.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defence sought to cross-examine the complainant, a young witness, on her videotaped statement regarding allegations of sexual assault by her foster father.

The court considered whether to permit cross-examination under section 540(9) of the Criminal Code.

The judge granted the application in part, permitting cross-examination on specific areas including the contents of the statement, physical possibility of the alleged acts, genesis and motive for the complaint, delayed disclosure, a prior false complaint, a diversion contract, and limited questioning regarding mental health issues.

The judge declined to permit cross-examination regarding school misbehaviour, finding it too remotely relevant.

The decision balanced the complainant's vulnerability as a young witness against the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of luring a child via computer contrary to Section 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

Over a period of three-and-a-half months, the accused engaged in thirteen computer communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 12-year-old girl, including sexually explicit content and masturbation on camera.

No meeting was arranged or attempted.

The accused, a 59-year-old with no criminal record and stable employment history, was sentenced to eight months imprisonment concurrent on all counts, followed by three years probation with strict conditions including a 10-year Section 161 order, 10-year Sex Offender Registration Act order, DNA sampling, and computer forfeiture.