Shakiba Azimi

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of uttering threats to burn down property.

The trial judge found that while the respondent made statements about burning down the house during an argument with his spouse, the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would interpret these words as a threat, nor that the respondent intended to intimidate or have the words taken seriously.

The trial judge considered the context of the parties' relationship, including their history of heated arguments where both parties said things they did not mean.

The appellate court upheld the acquittal, finding the trial judge's reasoning was sound and that he properly applied the legal test for uttering threats.

The court also rejected the Crown's allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's questions to the complainant and his suggestion of potential resolution options.

The appellant was convicted at trial in Ontario Court of Justice on nine counts including uttering threats, assault, assault by choking, assault with a weapon, and mischief against his former spouse.

On summary conviction appeal, the appellant raised grounds of appeal including reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellate judge found that the trial judge's extensive questioning of the appellant during cross-examination—intervening on 20 separate occasions with approximately 70 questions—created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The trial judge appeared to align herself with the Crown's case and pre-judged the appellant's credibility.

The appellate court set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial.

The appellant, Brandie Spagnolo, appealed her conviction for two counts of disobeying a court order under section 127(1) of the Criminal Code.

She argued that the underlying Family Court order was invalid because the Children’s Aid Society commenced its protection application in the wrong court.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the proceedings were properly before the Family Court and that the collateral attack rule prevented the appellant from challenging the validity of the order in this context.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court considered whether to exercise its discretion to grant pre-charge Charter relief in the form of a declaration that the seizure of items by police during a criminal investigation was in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The Applicants, Eastway Tank Pump and Meter Ltd. and Neil Greene, had not been charged with a criminal offence but were under investigation following a fatal explosion.

The court reviewed the factual background, the parties' positions, and relevant case law on the availability of certiorari and declaratory relief prior to the laying of charges.

Ultimately, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant the relief at this stage, finding the Charter issues best left to the trial judge, but left open the possibility of renewal if charges are not laid within a reasonable time and further evidence of reputational harm is provided.

Ralph King was sentenced after being found guilty of sexual assault against three women during private healing ceremonies where he acted as a spiritual healer.

The offences involved inappropriate physical contact under the guise of healing.

The court considered aggravating factors, including abuse of a position of trust, significant impact on victims (two of whom were Indigenous and had prior trauma), multiple victims, and fraud.

Mitigating factors included his compliance with release conditions, prosocial lifestyle, and health issues.

The court emphasized the interplay between s. 718.04 (vulnerable victims, particularly Indigenous women, mandating primary consideration of denunciation and deterrence) and s. 718.2(e) (Gladue principles for Indigenous offenders).

The court found that the harm done to the victims and the Indigenous community, coupled with the lack of remorse, necessitated a significant custodial sentence.