Setu Purohit

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, incest, and breach of probation.

The victim was his teenage daughter, from whom he had been estranged for many years before reconnecting in 2010.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility assessments and claimed the trial judge applied inconsistent standards of scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the trial judge's conclusions were entitled to deference and were supported by ample evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, as was the abandoned sentence appeal.

The offender was found guilty of aggravated assault after attacking a kinsman from behind with a machete, causing permanent scarring.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a reformatory sentence of 18 to 24 months.

The court rejected the defence's proposed sentence, noting the vicious and unprovoked nature of the attack.

The offender was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, less 9 days credit for pre-trial custody, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of controlled drugs and child pornography offences.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended a computer expert's evidence regarding folder structures and erred in finding he had knowledge of the contraband files.

The Court of Appeal held that while the trial judge made a factual error, it did not fatally infect the convictions given other evidence supporting the inference of knowledge.

The court also upheld the drug conviction, finding the trial judge reasonably rejected the appellant's explanation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order and to vacate the stay of that order.

The tenant sought an adjournment, which the court denied, finding the tenant was aware of the motion and refused to cooperate.

The court found that the tenant's appeal raised only factual issues, including findings regarding unpaid rent, service of an N12 Form, and a legitimate agreement of purchase and sale.

Concluding that the appeal disclosed no error of law and was without merit, the court dismissed the appeal and vacated the stay.

The two accused, both young first offenders, were convicted by a jury for their roles in a robbery and aggravated assault.

The female accused lured the victim to a parking lot where he was attacked by the male accused and an unknown third party wielding a metal baton.

The female accused was convicted of robbery as an aider but acquitted of aggravated assault.

The male accused was convicted of both offences.

The court weighed the serious nature of the offences against the offenders' strong rehabilitative prospects and strict bail conditions.

The female accused was sentenced to 45 days intermittent imprisonment and the male accused to 90 days intermittent imprisonment (after pre-sentence credit), both followed by two years of probation.