Shazin Karim

The accused applied to exclude evidence, including a firearm, seized from his home under a search warrant, arguing insufficient grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The court found insufficient grounds to establish an offence had been committed and that a firearm would be found in the home due to staleness of information and lack of clear evidence.

The application was granted, and the evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the seriousness of the police conduct (carelessness in disclosure) and the significant impact on the applicant's privacy interests.

The defendant, Ghassan Kullab, a Lyft driver, was found guilty of sexual assault.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability and the breach of trust by Kullab as a ride-share driver.

Mitigating factors included his lack of criminal record and mental health issues.

The court also addressed potential collateral immigration consequences, noting that a sentence of six months or more would remove his appeal rights for deportation.

After reviewing similar cases, the court imposed a sentence of six months less a day in institutional custody, followed by two years probation and other ancillary orders, concluding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate given the breach of trust.

The applicant, Ahman Ottley, sought to exclude evidence (drugs and a gun) obtained from searches of his car and residences, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and 9 (arbitrary detention).

The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the disclosure of confidential informant (CI) information, finding that the judicial summary provided was sufficient for the defence to make full answer and defence.

The court then found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for Mr. Ottley's arrest, based on CI information, police surveillance, and a prior "found in" incident.

Consequently, his section 9 rights were not violated.

The search of his car incident to arrest was deemed lawful and reasonable, as it was connected to the investigation, thus not violating his section 8 rights.

Finally, the searches of his residences, authorized by a warrant, were also found to be reasonable, as the issuing justice had sufficient grounds to believe evidence of drug trafficking would be found at those locations.

As no Charter breaches were found, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application to admit the accused's videotaped statement to police, while the accused brought an application to exclude the statement, alleging it was involuntary and obtained in violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The accused, whose first language is Portuguese, argued he did not understand the police cautions due to a language barrier and intoxication.

The court found that the accused understood his right to silence after speaking with duty counsel through an interpreter.

The court dismissed the Charter application and ruled the statement voluntary and admissible, finding no oppressive circumstances or police trickery.

The defendants, Richard Jakovac and Emilia Gruyters, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The net delay was calculated at 17 months and 10 days, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the defence took meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.

Despite the COVID-19 backlog, the court concluded that this simple 2-day case took "markedly longer" than it reasonably should have due to institutional delay, specifically a lack of judicial resources.

A stay of proceedings was ordered.

The applicant, charged with intimate partner violence, sought a bail variation under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code to permit contact with his wife.

The Crown opposed the variation, arguing there was no material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the applicant's new surety and voluntary counselling constituted a material change.

Balancing the need to protect the complainant with the secondary theme of family unity, the court allowed the variation, permitting contact with the complainant provided another adult is present, though cohabitation was not yet permitted.

The offender, Abdul Hamid, was found guilty of breaching a s. 161(4) prohibition order, which prohibited contact with children under 16 unless supervised.

The breach involved inviting a 13-year-old vulnerable complainant into his apartment.

The Crown sought 10-12 months custody and probation, while the offender sought time-served or a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing goals for s. 161 breaches.

Considering aggravating factors (prior child-luring conviction, flagrant breach, lack of remorse, vulnerability of complainant) and mitigating factors (offence not instigated, family support, religious, physical disability, restrictive bail), the court imposed a sentence of 10 months imprisonment, with 3 months credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in an additional 5 months of provincial custody, followed by 3 years of probation.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate due to the need for strong denunciation and specific deterrence.

The applicant, Michael Buabeng, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal prosecution for assault and sexual assault charges.

The total delay was 1,401 days (46 months), exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Courts.

The court deducted 105 days for defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 1,296 days.

The Crown argued for exceptional circumstances, including 181 days due to uncertainty surrounding Bill C-75 amendments to preliminary inquiries and 341 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

After deducting these exceptional circumstances, the remaining delay was 823 days (27.4 months), falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The onus then shifted to the defence to demonstrate that the delay was nonetheless unreasonable.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet this burden, and therefore, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused was charged with ten offences arising from a series of events over three days, including a home invasion, gas station robberies, vehicle thefts, and a police pursuit.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on clothing, stolen property, fingerprints, and tracking data.

The court applied the standard for circumstantial evidence, finding the accused guilty of the home invasion, vehicle thefts, license plate thefts, and failing to stop for police, as his guilt was the only rational conclusion.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of the gas station robbery and an attempted robbery, as the evidence left a reasonable doubt regarding his specific identity among multiple individuals present.

The appellant appealed impaired care or control and “over 80” care or control convictions from the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant argued that police breached his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel by failing to facilitate contact with his named counsel after he requested a specific lawyer.

The trial judge found a breach but admitted the breath evidence under s. 24(2).

The summary conviction appeal court held that the police made no effort to facilitate contact with counsel of choice and that the breath technician’s later administration of the right to counsel could not cure the earlier breach.

The trial judge therefore erred in law in concluding the breach was saved, and the conviction could not stand.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for sexual assault with a weapon, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child victim aged 12–13.

The offender lured the victim to his home under the pretext of visiting his daughter, exposed her to pornography, used a knife to intimidate her, compelled her to remove her clothing and dance, and sexually touched her.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, citing the vulnerability of the child victim, the use of a weapon, and the offender’s breach of trust as aggravating factors.

The offender also had prior convictions for multiple sexual offences against minors.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court stayed the sexual interference conviction and imposed custodial sentences on the remaining counts.