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 was charged with firearms, drug, and dangerous driving offences after police investigated his parked vehicle for cannabis and alcohol infractions.

The accused brought multiple Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention, excessive force via taser deployment, delayed right to counsel, improper muting of body-worn cameras, and an unlawful video-recorded strip search.

The court found a section 8 breach regarding the video recording of the strip search but declined to stay proceedings or exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

The remaining Charter claims were dismissed.

The accused was found guilty on all 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.

Following conviction after a judge-alone trial, the court sentenced the offender for repeated sexual abuse of three young complainants who were daughters of family friends temporarily living with him.

Applying the sentencing guidance in sexual offences against children, the court emphasized the inherent wrongfulness of the conduct, the abuse of trust, the multiple victims, the threats used to secure silence, and the serious long-term harm caused.

Although separate victims ordinarily favoured consecutive sentences, the court held that a fully consecutive structure would offend the totality principle and instead imposed concurrent sentences reflecting the gravamen of the overall misconduct.

The offender received a global sentence of eight years' imprisonment together with firearms, child-protection, DNA, SOIRA, and no-contact ancillary orders.

The defendant, charged with driving with excess blood alcohol, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total gross delay was approximately 25 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and deducted 55 weeks of delay attributable to the defence, including periods where the defence was unavailable or sought adjournments not legitimately taken to respond to the charges.

The net delay of 12.5 months fell well below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.