Satomi Aki

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of the trial was 968 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The Crown argued that three periods of delay should be attributed to the defence.

The court found only 18 days of defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 950 days (over 31 months).

As the net delay exceeded the ceiling and no exceptional circumstances were raised, the court found a breach of s. 11(b) and stayed the charges.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

Following a rear-end collision, the appellant failed a roadside screening test, was arrested, and repeatedly asked to be released at the scene rather than accompany the officer to the station, despite warnings that this would constitute a refusal.

On appeal, the appellant argued the refusal was not unequivocal, his statements were involuntary, and the information was improperly particularized.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors, the actus reus exception to the voluntariness rule applied to the refusal statements, and the information was sufficiently particularized.

The accused, an inmate at the Toronto South Detention Centre, was charged with manslaughter after a physical altercation with his 69-year-old cellmate.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the victim spilled water on him and allegedly touched him sexually.

The court rejected the sexual assault allegation and found the accused's response—delivering multiple blows that caused catastrophic facial and brain injuries—was disproportionate and unreasonable.

The court concluded the assault was a significant contributing cause of death and found the accused guilty of manslaughter.

The accused stood trial on multiple theft under $5,000 counts arising from alleged LCBO alcohol thefts and on one count of breaching a probation order prohibiting attendance at LCBO locations.

The sole live issue on the theft counts was identity, with the Crown relying primarily on surveillance video, in-court comparison, body worn camera footage, booking hall stills, and a disputed mugshot.

The court admitted the mugshot under s. 31.1 of the Canada Evidence Act but held that, even considering all comparison evidence and applying the caution required by Nikolovski, identity was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt on any remaining theft count.

Although the court found the accused was the same person bound by the probation order, the alleged attendance at the LCBO on November 24, 2024 was not proven, so the breach count also failed.

The court sentenced the accused after trial for assault arising from a public confrontation in which the victim was putting up posters of Israeli child hostages.

The sentencing judge found the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate against the victim as a member of the Jewish community and as a person publicly expressing support for Jewish hostages, making denunciation and general deterrence primary sentencing objectives.

While the accused was a first offender and judicial restraint remained relevant, the court held that a discharge or suspended sentence would be contrary to the public interest and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and its significant victim and community impact.

A 150-day conditional sentence with GPS monitoring, house arrest and curfew terms, followed by 12 months' probation, was imposed together with a five-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.