S. Navin Sookram

The accused, Khalid Mohamed, was charged with second degree murder in the stabbing death of Steven Burns.

The facts were largely undisputed: Mohamed stabbed Burns, causing his death.

The central issue was whether Mohamed acted in self-defence or whether provocation would reduce the charge to manslaughter.

The court found that Mohamed had been robbed and assaulted by Burns and others, and that Mohamed stabbed Burns during a struggle for control of a knife.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mohamed’s actions were unreasonable in the circumstances, and acquitted him of second degree murder.

The accused, Khalid Mohamed, facing a second-degree murder charge, brought a Scopelliti application seeking to introduce evidence of the victim's prior violent convictions to support a self-defence claim.

The Crown conceded the relevance of some convictions but opposed the entire record.

The court, applying principles from Scopelliti and Golov, found that certain convictions for assault with a weapon, break and enter, assault, and possession of property obtained by crime were probative and admissible, while others were not.

The application was granted in part.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decisions which suspended, rather than revoked, the appellants' liquor licences for breaching conditions restricting the involvement of the owner's son.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal misapprehended the 'reasonable grounds for belief' test under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act and made significant errors of law and fact.

The Associate Chair found no significant errors of law or fact in the Tribunal's conclusion that the past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty.

The reconsideration request was dismissed and the previous decisions were confirmed.

The Appellants appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke their liquor licences due to breaches of conditions.

The Tribunal previously found that conditions on both licences were breached when a former manager failed to report criminal charges and continued to be involved in management.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought revocation, while the Appellants sought a three-day suspension.

The Tribunal ordered a 5-day suspension for one restaurant and a 10-day suspension for the other, along with new conditions strictly prohibiting the former manager from entering the premises or having any involvement in the businesses.