Sangeeta Sharadchandra Patel

The defendant, Keenan George, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing his brother, Kegan, during an argument over household cleanliness.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years in penitentiary, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court found the offence to be serious, driven by anger, and not mitigated by alcohol or drugs.

Considering the principles of denunciation and general deterrence, the court imposed a sentence of 41 months imprisonment, after accounting for pre-sentence custody, deeming a conditional sentence inappropriate given the severity of the crime.

Two young persons were charged with sexual assault and gang sexual assault, as well as robbery with violence, arising from an incident on September 20, 2009, in Toronto.

The complainant, a sex worker, engaged in sexual activity with four young men in a stolen red Honda vehicle and was subsequently beaten and robbed.

The court found that while the defendants participated in the robbery, the Crown failed to prove sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court determined that although the complainant may have had subjective misgivings about the sexual activity, her outward conduct and words were consistent with consent, and the defendants could have held an honest but mistaken belief in her consent.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that consent was vitiated by fraud or the subsequent robbery.

The appellant was convicted at trial of speeding contrary to s. 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

On appeal, the appellant raised seven grounds of error, including allegations that the Justice of the Peace erred in proceeding without counsel, failed to inform the appellant of his right to an adjournment, erred in granting an amendment to the charge, applied the wrong legal standard, and failed to adequately explain the rejection of the appellant's evidence.

The appeal court found that while the Justice of the Peace applied an incorrect legal standard (strict liability instead of absolute liability), this error benefited the appellant and did not affect the verdict.

The court upheld the conviction, finding no reversible error.