Sweta Tejpal

The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his credibility assessment by impermissibly using the absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate as proof of no motive, and by making blanket credibility findings without sufficient analysis of individual counts or conflicting evidence.

The court applied the curative proviso to one count (Count 6) but not others.

The appeal was allowed for four counts, with a new trial ordered for three and an acquittal entered for one.

The offender was convicted of multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and mischief against his intimate partner and her son over a 15-month period.

The assaults caused permanent and life-altering injuries to the partner, including facial disfigurement.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or minimal custodial sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also considered the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The offender was sentenced to a global custodial term of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

Anand Dindyal was charged with 11 counts, including assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief, primarily against Jennifer Hamp and one count against Larz Kovacevic.

The trial proceeded as a judge-alone trial.

The court assessed the credibility of witnesses, applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The complainant, Jennifer Hamp, was found credible, while Dindyal's testimony was deemed contrived and implausible.

The court found Dindyal guilty on 10 of the 11 counts, dismissing one count of assault due to reasonable doubt regarding intentional contact.

Appeal from a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice on April 21, 2017 for historical sexual assault offences.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's evidence, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by failing to consider whether the complainant's testimony was the product of life experiences and an after-the-fact reconciliation of dreams with actual events, and by improperly considering rumours evidence.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding that the trial judge carefully considered and properly rejected the appellant's submissions.

The court determined that the appellant's arguments constituted a challenge to the reasonableness of the verdicts, which were not unreasonable given the trial judge's assessment of credibility and the application of the burden of proof.

Saad Fouad was found guilty of robbery.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the premeditated nature of the robbery and the fear induced in the victims, and mitigating factors, including Fouad's youth, first-time offender status at the time of the offence, and expressed remorse.

Despite subsequent convictions, the court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, ultimately imposing a six-month imprisonment followed by two years of probation.

Sentencing for sexual interference, invitation to touch for a sexual purpose, and breach of a child-contact prohibition order arising from sexualized communications with and sexual touching of a 15-year-old complainant.

The court treated the offender's prior similar record, grooming conduct, exploitation of vulnerability, and the severe victim impact as significant aggravating factors, while also crediting harsh pre-trial detention conditions, family support, work history, counselling efforts, and rehabilitative prospects.

The court agreed with prior Superior Court authorities holding the one-year mandatory minimums for the sexual offences unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter.

A global sentence of 42 months was imposed, with 35.8 months' credit for pre-trial custody, followed by probation and extensive ancillary orders; an addendum clarified that the invitation count was not stayed and attracted a concurrent 36-month sentence.

Saad Fouad was charged with robbery and using an imitation firearm.

The court found him guilty of robbery, determining that an implied threat of violence existed based on the totality of circumstances, including leading the victim to a dark, secluded area where a second individual brandished an object perceived as a gun.

However, he was found not guilty of using an imitation firearm because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the individual who brandished the object, as witness testimony indicated it was the second male, not Fouad.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and breach of a prohibition order arising from online communications with a 15-year-old complainant and a late-night drive from Mississauga to Kitchener.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as illogical and implausible on key issues, including his claimed ignorance of the complainant's age and his explanation for requesting sexual acts and providing transportation.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable despite immaterial inconsistencies, and rejected the defence theory that she fabricated the allegation to avoid parental discipline.

Convictions were entered on all four counts.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired driving, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and reached an unreasonable verdict regarding his identity as the driver at a restaurant drive-thru.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no errors in assessing the identification evidence and that the guilty verdict was entirely reasonable based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

The offender was convicted of trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of cocaine.

The offences occurred while the offender was on bail for a previous trafficking charge.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years, while the defence sought two to two and a half years.

The court balanced the aggravating factors, including the nature and quantity of the drugs and the offender's related criminal record, against mitigating factors such as a positive pre-sentence report, family support, and efforts to upgrade his education.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court sentenced the offender to a global sentence of 24 months in custody, after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

The defendant was charged with wilfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances in connection with her entitlement to benefits within 10 days after the change occurred, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The defendant had been receiving benefits for work-related back injuries and depression since 2007.

The prosecution presented surveillance evidence showing the defendant engaging in numerous independent activities (driving, shopping, attending events) during June 1-6, 2011, which contradicted her reported condition of severe pain and limited mobility.

The court found that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence, rejecting the defendant's arguments regarding language barriers and medication effects.

The defendant was convicted.