Tara Esther Messeouda Mrejen

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and exposing his daughter to sexually explicit material.

The offences allegedly occurred when the daughter was 8 and 9 years old, during visits to the accused's apartment following her parents' separation.

The accused denied the allegations, arguing he was never alone with the complainant and that the allegations were fabricated by the mother to gain an advantage in family court.

The court admitted evidence of the accused's prior physical violence to provide context and explain the complainant's delayed disclosure.

Applying the common sense approach to child witnesses, the court found the complainant credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's exculpatory evidence due to material inconsistencies and deliberate lies.

The accused was found guilty of all charges.

A lawyer pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000, having misappropriated over $3.2 million from multiple clients and estates through a profound breach of trust.

The court sentenced him to 58 months imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence due to the gravity, duration, and significant impact of the fraud, and the exploitation of his professional position.

Restitution orders were issued in favour of the Law Society of Ontario and one estate, while a claim for legal fees by another victim was declined.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

At trial, she brought a Charter application alleging multiple breaches, including delay in the roadside screening demand, failure to facilitate access to counsel of choice, and arbitrary detention due to overholding for 5.5 hours after breath testing.

The court found violations of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the serious breaches warranted exclusion of the breath samples under s. 24(2).

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant, David Seemangal, was charged with having excess blood alcohol.

He applied to exclude breath samples and Intoxilyzer results, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under ss. 8 (unreasonable search/seizure), 9 (arbitrary detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that the police conducted an unlawful pat-down search and made an ASD demand without reasonable suspicion, thereby breaching ss. 8 and 9.

The court also found a s. 10(b) breach when the defendant invoked his right to counsel at the roadside but was not afforded an opportunity to consult.

However, the court found no s. 10(b) breach at the police station.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court determined that the breaches, while present, were not serious enough to warrant exclusion of the evidence, given the collective police knowledge and the minor impact on the defendant's interests compared to the significant impact on the administration of justice if the reliable evidence were excluded.

Consequently, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and Mr. Seemangal was found guilty.

The accused brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings, alleging an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 29.5 months.

The court deducted 10.5 months of defence delay, finding that defence counsel was unavailable for earlier trial dates offered by the court.

The court also deducted approximately 8.5 months as an exceptional circumstance due to the complainant's unavailability to testify because of childcare issues exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

After these deductions, the net delay was calculated at just over 10 months, which was well below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought a Norwich Order requiring the respondent website to disclose the personal information of anonymous users who posted allegedly defamatory reviews about the applicants' business.

The respondent did not appear.

The court applied the five-part test for a Norwich Order, finding that the applicants had a bona fide claim for defamation, the respondent was involved in the acts by facilitating the anonymous posts, and the respondent was the only practicable source of the information.

The court granted the order, noting that the interests of justice do not favour permitting anonymous posters to engage in a campaign of defamation with impunity.