Sourena Sarbazevatan

This decision addresses the division of property, child support, and spousal support following the breakdown of an 18-year marriage between parties who immigrated from Iran to Canada.

The main issue was the treatment of the Mehr (a marriage contract requiring payment of 800 gold coins), its enforceability, and its impact on equalization of net family property.

The court found the Mehr was not paid, ordered an unequal division of property in the husband's favour due to unconscionability, and dismissed the husband's claim for spousal support.

The court also set out child support obligations and addressed credibility issues with both parties.

The accused, Ali Alavi, pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged he sexually assaulted the complainant, S.A., at his residence after drugging her, rendering her incapacitated for consent in the master bedroom, and then forcing non-consensual vaginal intercourse in a second bedroom.

The defence contended the allegations were fabricated or based on false memories.

The court found the complainant was drugged and incapable of consenting in the master bedroom, and that she did not consent to sexual activity in the second bedroom.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The accused, A.R.A., was charged with multiple counts of sexual interference, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and invitation to sexual touching involving his two nieces.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainants and the accused, and considered the admissibility of similar fact evidence.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible and identified significant inconsistencies in the complainants' accounts, as well as potential collusion between them.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the Crown had not proven the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for any of the charges.

The accused, A.R.A., faced charges including sexual interference and sexual assault.

The defence applied for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court calculated the total delay from charge to the end of evidence, deducting periods attributable to exceptional circumstances: witness illness (4 months), unexpected witness availability (3 weeks), and inaccurate trial estimates/COVID-19 backlog (1 month + 1 week).

The net delay fell below the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial court.

The court found the defence did not take meaningful steps to expedite proceedings.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The appellant, S.F., appealed convictions for three counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against his wife, alleging errors in the trial judge's credibility assessment and misapprehension of evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, affirming that the judge was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence despite initial non-disclosure (attributed to fear of retaliation) and minor inconsistencies.

The court found no material misapprehension of evidence and deferred to the trial judge's careful assessment of the complainant's testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against his wife, alleging incidents on April 9 and 14, 2019.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual contact, while the defence claimed the contact was consensual.

The complainant testified that she had no interest in the accused, that their marriage had broken down, and that she did not consent to the sexual contact.

The accused testified that the contact was consensual and that their marriage was loving.

The court found the accused's evidence to be unreliable due to multiple inconsistencies and evasiveness regarding the state of the marriage.

The complainant's evidence also contained inconsistencies regarding post-incident contact with the accused.

The court found a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

This endorsement arises from an urgent case conference concerning a father's access to the parties' 1.5-year-old child during the COVID-19 emergency.

Following judicial recommendations and negotiations, the parties consented to an order defining the child's time with the father.

The court emphasized the immediate enforceability of the order without formal entry due to the emergency, and directed a future case conference for non-parenting issues.

During the COVID-19 suspension of court operations, the court issued directions for a case conference concerning access to the parties' child.

This followed an urgent motion where the respondent mother was found in breach of a prior consent access order.

The endorsement outlines specific procedural directions for the conference, including electronic filing and a restricted focus on access, and declares these directions to be an immediately operative and enforceable order.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of administering a noxious substance.

The Crown alleged that the accused engaged in non-consensual anal intercourse with two 18-year-old complainants whom he met through the Grindr app, despite their explicit prior communication that they did not want anal intercourse.

The accused admitted to sexual activity but claimed it was consensual.

The court found the accused guilty of both sexual assault charges based on the credible and corroborating evidence of both complainants, the similar fact evidence demonstrating a distinctive pattern of behavior, and the clear communication of non-consent.

The court found the accused not guilty of administering a noxious substance due to inconsistencies in the evidence regarding that charge.

The accused was convicted of mischief in relation to religious property motivated by religious prejudice or hatred under s. 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, a member of the Shia Muslim faith, attended a mosque during Ramadan while intoxicated, insulted occupants, and urinated on the mosque steps in front of children and arriving families.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 90 days for deterrence purposes.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with conditions including 18 months probation, reporting to probation, a prohibition on attending the mosque, and 40 hours of community service within 12 months, finding the circumstances unusual and placing the offence at the lower end of the sentencing scale.

The accused was charged with mischief in relation to a property used for religious worship contrary to s. 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused entered a mosque during Ramadan services, insulted Islam and those present, and then urinated on the mosque steps in front of children and families arriving for the service.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, rejected the defence of necessity, and found that the Crown proved the mischief was motivated by religious hatred.

The accused was found guilty.