S. Park

Sentencing of a 16-year-old young person who pleaded guilty to failing to stop and remain at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm, contrary to Criminal Code s. 320.16(2).

The young person drove a stolen vehicle at nearly double the posted speed limit with four teenage passengers, fled from police, collided with another vehicle causing serious injuries to two passengers including life-threatening injuries requiring emergency surgery, then fled the scene.

The court considered the presumption of diminished moral culpability under the YCJA, the seriousness of the offence including multiple aggravating factors, the young person's background and rehabilitative prospects, and the inapplicability of Gladue principles due to insufficient evidence connecting self-identified Indigenous heritage to systemic factors.

The court accepted a joint submission for a four-month open custody and supervision order, finding this was the least restrictive sentence capable of holding the young person accountable while promoting rehabilitation and reintegration.

This decision addresses the reliability and credibility of witness testimony in a stabbing case where the accused, Tharsigan Ravichandran, was identified by the victim through a problematic photo line-up.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ravichandran was the stabber due to inconsistent, unreliable, and contradictory witness evidence, including issues with the victim's identification and motives to lie among witnesses.

The accused was acquitted on both counts of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath sample evidence based on alleged breaches of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The accused argued that special circumstances existed due to language barriers and that the police failed to take appropriate measures to ensure meaningful comprehension of his rights.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, and that no special circumstances existed requiring additional language accommodations.

The Charter applications were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

A voir dire was held to determine the competency of a conditionally accredited Korean interpreter, Jun Young Choi, pursuant to section 14 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The interpreter had failed the simultaneous translation component of the Ministry test but passed the consecutive translation component.

The court applied the objective standard of competence established in case law and found the interpreter competent to proceed with consecutive interpretation in a non-complex, non-technical trial.