Scott Pearl

The accused was tried for sexual assault arising from an evening of drinking that culminated in sexual activity on a couch in his office.

The Crown alleged that the complainant was asleep during the sexual activity and did not consent, while the defence asserted that the sexual touching occurred consensually while she was awake and that the only non-consensual act was photographing her while asleep.

Applying the sexual assault consent framework, the Villaroman approach to circumstantial proof, and the W.(D.) principles, the court found the complainant’s evidence on the core alleged sexual activity unreliable in several material respects and accepted the toxicology evidence that the complainant was not incapacitated, though possibly in a deep sleep.

The court further held that the DNA evidence did not exclude reasonable inferences consistent with the defence account.

The accused was acquitted because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual touching.

The accused was found guilty of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm, as well as possession of methamphetamine and breach of probation.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay two of the firearms counts, finding they shared a legal and factual nexus with the primary offence, but declined to stay counts for possession of a prohibited device and carrying a concealed weapon.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms offences, the court sentenced the accused to 3.5 years in custody, less 6 months credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, leaving 3 years to serve.

The court sentenced Samantha Arezo Faryadpoor for her role in a violent home invasion and robbery.

While she did not physically assault the victim, she was an active participant in the planning and execution of the offence.

The court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the lasting harm to the victim, Faryadpoor’s youth, her guilty plea, and her efforts at rehabilitation.

The court imposed a sentence of three years and ten months in jail, less credit for pre-sentence custody and time on house arrest, followed by two years’ probation with conditions.

The accused, Yuan-Hung Lo, was charged with Fraud Over $5000 and three counts of Possession of Property Over $5000.

The Crown alleged that Mr. Lo knowingly participated in a fraud scheme where the complainant was defrauded of $181,000, or was wilfully blind to it.

The defence argued that Mr. Lo believed he was involved in a legitimate business deal and was unaware of the fraud.

The court found that while Mr. Lo's business practices were odd and naive, his testimony and efforts to document transactions raised a reasonable doubt as to his knowledge or wilful blindness.

Consequently, the court found Mr. Lo not guilty of all charges.

The defendant, Othniel Shirley (a.k.a.

Morris El Wainwright Bey), was charged with assault bodily harm after breaking a storekeeper's wrist for enforcing a mask policy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant, self-represented, argued self-defence and a Section 7 Charter breach due to alleged non-disclosure of surveillance video.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible, disproved self-defence, and dismissed the Charter application, concluding that the Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty.

Mr. Gidharry was sentenced for attempted murder after attacking his plant manager with samurai swords, causing significant physical and emotional injuries.

He had also pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and carrying concealed weapons, which were conditionally stayed.

The court considered aggravating factors including premeditation, use of deadly weapons, and severe victim impact, and mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record, employment, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to the pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 17 years' imprisonment, reduced to 12 years and 9 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

This case concerns a criminal trial where the accused, Eden Gidharry, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and carrying concealed weapons but not guilty to attempted murder.

The court, sitting without a jury, assessed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill the victim during a violent attack with samurai swords.

The court considered the premeditated nature of the attack, the target, the severity and location of the victim's injuries, and the accused's utterances, ultimately concluding that the intent to murder was established.

The Crown applied for a forfeiture order under s. 117.05(1) of the Criminal Code in respect of a handgun seized from the respondent during a mental health crisis.

The crisis was precipitated by an adverse reaction to a newly prescribed antidepressant medication.

The respondent subsequently changed medications, stabilized, and reconciled with his family.

The court found that the respondent was a responsible gun owner and that there was no continuing basis to restrain his possession of the firearm.

The application for forfeiture was dismissed and the firearm was ordered returned to the respondent.

Craig Colton pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and possession offences.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence (24-30 months), while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court determined Colton was a street-level trafficker, not mid-level, and considered his personal circumstances, including childhood trauma, addiction, and rehabilitation efforts.

The judge concluded that an upper reformatory sentence was fit and that a conditional sentence, with strict conditions including home confinement and electronic monitoring, would adequately achieve sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence while fostering rehabilitation.

Rehan Riaz, facing multiple charges including impaired driving and driving disqualified, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, including new sureties and efforts to secure addiction counselling, and arguments regarding the length of pre-trial custody potentially exceeding a fit sentence.

The court found that the new supervision plan was not a material change but accepted that the potential length of pre-trial incarceration, possibly exceeding a likely sentence, constituted a material change.

The court granted judicial interim release with specific conditions, including residing with his sister, supervision, and prohibitions on alcohol, non-prescriptive drugs, and driving.

The accused applied under s. 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained via a search warrant, arguing the warrant was improperly issued due to insufficient grounds and improper use of the telewarrant procedure.

The court dismissed the application, finding the warrant was properly issued based on reasonable and probable grounds, the confidential informant's tip was sufficiently corroborated under the Debot test, and the telewarrant procedure was appropriately used as "impracticable" does not require urgency.

Even if there was a Charter breach regarding the telewarrant, the evidence would be admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The applicant, facing serious drug trafficking charges, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after being denied legal aid.

The Crown conceded the charges were serious and the case complex, but disputed the applicant's inability to privately fund his defence.

The court found that Legal Aid Ontario's income thresholds were unrealistic and that the applicant, who earned approximately $16,000 annually, had no realistic prospect of funding the estimated $11,000 trial costs.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed pending the provision of state-funded counsel.

The Crown sought to admit a videotaped police statement of the complainant, Ashley Briscoe, for its truth under the principled approach to hearsay admissibility established in R. v. K.G.B. and R. v. Khelawon.

The complainant had recanted her allegations during cross-examination after initially adopting her police statement during examination-in-chief.

The court found that both the necessity and reliability criteria were satisfied.

Necessity was established by the complainant's recantation, and reliability was supported by the videotaped nature of the statement, the availability of the declarant for cross-examination, an adequate K.G.B. caution, and corroborative evidence of the alleged injuries.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

On appeal, she introduced fresh evidence that her trial counsel failed to advise the sentencing judge of a co-accused's six-month sentence and the immigration consequences of a sentence of six months or more.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, found the appellant's culpability similar to her co-accused, and reduced the sentence to six months less a day to preserve her right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division.