Sujith Sutharsan

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 court considered charges of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, making sexually explicit material available to a person under 16, and assault against E.V. involving two complainants, S.A. and K.A., who were sisters.

The court analyzed the admissibility and weight of similar fact evidence, the credibility and reliability of the complainants and the accused, and the requirements for conviction on each count.

E.V. was found guilty of sexual interference in relation to K.A. (the car incident), and not guilty on the remaining charges.

The accused, Kugaruban Somasundaram, brought a pre-trial application challenging the admissibility of his blood alcohol readings (BAC) on the grounds that his s. 10(b) Charter rights (right to counsel) were breached.

The court found that the accused's right to consult with counsel was breached because he spoke to a paralegal, not a lawyer, and the police, specifically the booking sergeant, were aware of this but did not inform the accused or facilitate a consultation with a lawyer.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court found the state conduct serious and the impact on the accused's Charter rights significant, leading to the exclusion of the breath test evidence.