Sonya Shikhman

The accused was convicted of historical sexual assault against his stepson (A.B.) and assault against his biological son (C.D.).

The stepson was approximately 14 years old when he was anally penetrated by the accused while asleep in his own bedroom.

The biological son was approximately six years old when the accused forcefully removed his shirt in a closed washroom during a party.

The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years in penitentiary for the sexual assault and 30 days concurrent for the assault, rejecting the defence position for a conditional sentence and accepting the Crown's position that denunciation and deterrence must take precedence.

The defendants brought a preliminary motion seeking to excise from an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant references to the unlawful search of a third party's vehicle in which cocaine was found.

The search had been previously determined to be unlawful by another justice.

The Crown opposed the excision, arguing the defendants lacked standing to challenge a third party's search.

The court held that while the defendants could not challenge the lawfulness of the third party search itself, they could seek excision of evidence obtained through a judicially determined Charter breach to prevent the state from benefiting from illegal police conduct.

The court granted the motion and excised all references to the stop, arrest, and seizure from the third party's vehicle.

The Appellant challenged her conviction for impaired driving and Over 80, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and in rejecting her testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, affirming that the arresting officer had sufficient objective grounds based on the totality of circumstances, and that the trial judge's credibility assessment and reasons for conviction were adequate and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed convictions for dangerous driving and over .80 operation of a motor vehicle, following a trial where the sole issue was the identity of the driver.

The trial judge disbelieved the appellant's evidence and accepted the arresting officer's identification, which was based on a brief "one second glance" followed by apprehension 40 seconds later.

The appellant contended that the trial judge erred in assessing the reliability of the officer's identification and the appellant's credibility.

The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's findings, emphasizing the high degree of deference owed to credibility assessments and finding no error in the application of identification evidence principles.

The court held that the trial judge's reasons for rejecting the appellant's implausible version of events and accepting the officer's identification were well-supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a second application under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stay charges of impaired driving and "over 80" due to unreasonable delay.

The first application was dismissed in August 2016 when the anticipated trial completion was under 18 months.

By the time of the second application in February 2017, the total delay had exceeded 22 months.

The court found that the Crown failed to disclose critical evidence (an audio dispatch recording) despite repeated requests over many months, and that this disclosure failure was the primary cause of delay beyond the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown adduced no evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the excess delay.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused brought a Section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

Charged on April 14, 2015, with impaired driving and "over 80," the trial was set for September 26-27, 2016, representing approximately 17 months of delay.

The application was heard on July 13, 2016, shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision in R. v. Jordan, which established an 18-month ceiling for delay in Ontario Court of Justice cases.

The court found that while the delay fell slightly below the presumptively reasonable threshold, the accused failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and the delay did not markedly exceed what was reasonably required.

The application was dismissed and the trial dates were upheld.

The accused were charged with assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and intimidation following an incident in which the complainant was lured to the defendant's home and severely beaten.

The Crown alleged that the male defendant, motivated by jealousy over the complainant's intimate relationship with the female defendant, orchestrated the assault with an unknown second assailant.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and accepted his evidence that he was set upon by two individuals and beaten, suffering fractured ribs and significant facial injuries.

The male defendant was found guilty of all charges.

The female defendant's charges were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of her knowledge and intent to participate in the assault, though the judge found her at least wilfully blind to the possibility of violence.

The defendant, a bank employee, pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud involving the theft of over $11,000 from the bank and its clients.

The Crown sought a six-month conditional sentence, while the defence sought a discharge.

The defendant claimed he committed the frauds to raise money to save his sister from kidnapping and rape threats by a Syrian militia group.

The court found the defendant's testimony credible and accepted that his motivation was to protect his sister from serious harm.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years' probation, finding that the exceptional circumstances of the case—involving duress-like conditions and a humanitarian motivation—warranted a departure from the typical sentencing range for breach of trust frauds.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and excess alcohol following a rear-end collision with a taxi at approximately 2:30 a.m. on October 20, 2012.

The Crown relied on observations of impairment by the arresting officer and toxicology evidence showing blood alcohol readings of 172 and 179 mg/100mL more than two hours after the incident.

The defendant argued that bolus drinking (rapid consumption of alcohol shortly before driving) explained the high readings and that her blood alcohol level at the time of driving may have been below the legal limit.

The court acquitted the defendant of impaired operation but convicted on the excess alcohol charge, finding the defendant's evidence regarding bolus consumption unreliable and applying a common sense inference that people do not normally consume large quantities of alcohol immediately before driving.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the Crown failed to prove that breath samples were taken “as soon as practicable” under s. 258(1)(c)(ii), and that police breached his Charter right to counsel under s. 10(b), including by failing to provide a Prosper warning.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held the trial judge reasonably concluded that an 18‑minute transport to the police station satisfied the “as soon as practicable” requirement and that police acted reasonably and promptly.

The court further found the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and did not act diligently in pursuing that right, and that his statement declining to speak with counsel constituted an unequivocal waiver.

The conviction was upheld.

The accused were charged with assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and intimidation.

The Crown alleged that following a sexual encounter between the female accused and the complainant, the male accused lured the complainant to the home where he and an unidentified assailant attacked him, causing serious injuries including fractured ribs and a collapsed lung.

The defence sought to exclude evidence of flirting between the complainant and the female accused, and evidence that the female accused encouraged alcohol consumption, arguing such evidence relied on discriminatory stereotypes about women's sexual conduct.

The court admitted the evidence, finding it relevant to establishing motive and context while carefully distinguishing between proper and improper uses of such evidence.