Timothy R. Lipson

Following a finding of guilt for sexual assault, the accused applied for a mistrial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The accused claimed he was deprived of an informed election as to mode of trial, that counsel failed to call proposed defence witnesses, and that counsel effectively decided that the accused would not testify.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that trial counsel provided reasonable professional assistance and strategic advice, and that the accused failed to establish that he was deprived of the ability to make the fundamental decisions belonging to him, or that any prejudice resulted.

Following a judge-alone trial on historical sexual offence charges, the court convicted the accused of two counts of sexual interference and three counts of sexual assault arising from three incidents involving a child and adolescent complainant within an extended family context.

The defence challenged the complainant’s credibility and reliability based on omissions from her police statement, temporal imprecision, subsequent cordial contact, and asserted improbabilities.

The court held that no special evidentiary rules apply to historical sexual offences, that delayed disclosure and non-stereotypical behaviour cannot ground adverse credibility findings, and that peripheral inconsistencies must be assessed contextually.

Finding the complainant’s evidence stable on the essential elements and her explanations for omissions and memory gaps persuasive, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment after following and filming a police officer on a university campus.

The Crown alleged the accused repeatedly followed the officer contrary to s. 264(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused's conduct, while persistent and unwelcome, constituted only a single continuous encounter, which did not meet the statutory requirement of 'repeatedly' following.

Furthermore, the court held that the officer's forward-looking and hypothetical fear for his safety was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD).

After being stopped for driving with high beams on and an open gas-cap door, the accused exhibited glassy eyes and delayed responses, prompting an ASD demand.

The accused failed to provide a suitable sample after six attempts, with the final three attempts involving no airflow.

The court found the demand was lawful, the ASD was functioning properly, and the accused had a meaningful opportunity to comply.

The court concluded the accused's failure was purposeful and entered a finding of guilt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and assault by choking against a friend of his wife.

The complainant testified that the accused grabbed her neck, forced a kiss, and engaged in non-consensual sexual touching.

The accused testified and claimed the interaction was a brief consensual kiss.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it implausible and contradicted by contemporaneous text messages in which he repeatedly apologized and asked for secrecy.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the complainant's evidence and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg after a single-vehicle collision.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the roadside screening demand, her arrests, and the breathalyzer results under sections 8, 9, 10(b), and 7 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the officer's actions lawful and reasonable despite the accused's transient anxiety and hyperventilation.

The court admitted the breath test results and found the accused guilty of both charges based on the conclusive breath readings and cumulative indicia of impairment.

In a criminal trial, the self-represented accused sought exclusion of cell phone evidence following his arrest in the public lounge of an emergency shelter on charges arising from threatening emails to an elected official.

The court held that, although the accused subjectively viewed the shelter as his home, he had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the shared, openly accessible, supervised lounge area.

The arrest was supported by reasonable grounds and was not arbitrary, and the seizure of the phone was a valid search incident to lawful arrest followed by a judicially authorized forensic search.

In the alternative, even if ss. 8 or 9 had been breached, the evidence would have been admitted under the Grant framework.

The offender was convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, uttering death threats, and criminal harassment after abducting a stranger at knifepoint and holding her captive for nearly two hours.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the high degree of planning, prolonged confinement, and deliberate cruelty.

The court granted the Crown's application to delay parole eligibility to one-half of the sentence.

Additionally, based on expert psychiatric evidence indicating a high risk of violent sexual reoffending, the court designated the offender as a Long-Term Offender and imposed a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

Sentencing for multiple offences arising from a sustained episode of intimate partner violence involving repeated assaults, choking, threats to kill, forcible confinement, and mischief.

The court treated the intimate partner context, repeated strangulation, prolonged controlling conduct across multiple locations, and significant harm to the victim and her family, including children exposed to the violence, as serious aggravating factors.

Although the offender was a first offender with employment, family support, counselling efforts, and some evidence of remorse, the court held that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the principles in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

A mid-to-high reformatory sentence of 15 months' custody followed by three years' probation, together with DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders, was imposed.

The accused was tried on charges of criminal harassment and mischief arising from post-separation conduct toward a former intimate partner.

The court found that repeated unwanted and degrading text messages, surveillance, unauthorized entry into the complainant’s home, confrontation of her new partner, and placement of a GPS tracking device in her vehicle established the actus reus of criminal harassment and supported a finding that the complainant’s fear was objectively reasonable.

Applying the subjective mens rea standard, the court held the accused knew or was at least reckless or wilfully blind to whether the complainant was harassed, particularly in light of repeated express demands to stop and his own acknowledgements in the messages.

The court also found that installing or causing the installation of the GPS device interfered with the complainant’s lawful use and enjoyment of her vehicle.

Convictions were entered on both counts.

The accused were tried on fraud over $5000 charges arising from fraudulent corporate cheques issued by an employee of the victim company to the accuseds' businesses.

The court treated the employee witness as an unsavoury witness and applied a Vetrovec warning, finding that actual knowledge of the internal falsification of records was not proven against either accused.

However, applying the fraud framework and the doctrine of wilful blindness, the court held that each accused knowingly engaged in dishonest dealing by accepting large cheques from a company to which neither was entitled, remitting false HST and income tax to make the transactions appear legitimate, and failing to make obvious inquiries.

A co-conspirator statement was admitted against the second accused under the Carter test.

Both accused were found guilty as charged.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial on a twenty-count information arising from an alleged intimate partner violence episode over a single evening and early morning, the court applied the W(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt standard to sharply conflicting testimony.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence where it was corroborated by independent eyewitness testimony, surveillance videos, audio recordings, and injury photographs, and rejected much of the accused’s evidence as evasive, inconsistent, and untruthful.

The Crown proved multiple counts of assault, assault by choking, uttering threats, forcible seizure, and mischief, including incidents in a park, a parking garage, an Uber ride, a bar, and at a residence.

Several counts, including some threat, assault, and theft allegations, were dismissed where the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Ali Alavi, pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged he sexually assaulted the complainant, S.A., at his residence after drugging her, rendering her incapacitated for consent in the master bedroom, and then forcing non-consensual vaginal intercourse in a second bedroom.

The defence contended the allegations were fabricated or based on false memories.

The court found the complainant was drugged and incapable of consenting in the master bedroom, and that she did not consent to sexual activity in the second bedroom.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The accused, Abel Hailu, faced multiple Criminal Code charges including sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, forcible confinement, criminal harassment (two counts), intimidation, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and kidnapping, arising from an incident on October 14, 2022.

The central issue was consent, with the complainant alleging non-consensual sexual activity and forced movement under threat of a knife, and the accused claiming all interactions were consensual.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by other evidence, including the accused's internet search history and post-incident communications, which indicated planning and an intent to control.

The accused's explanations were rejected as not credible.

The court convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused, Abel Hailu, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through alleged breaches of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights, specifically concerning police takeover of the complainant's phone for text messaging, his arrest, strip search, and search of his residence and electronic devices.

The court found that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages with the complainant, who was a stranger and alleged victim of a sexual assault and kidnapping.

Therefore, no s. 8 breach occurred regarding the text messages, and the subsequent arrest was lawful.

The court also found no s. 8 breaches regarding the strip search or the search of his residence and electronic devices, as these were conducted reasonably and based on valid warrants.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Akram Elmuradi, was charged with sexual assault.

The defence conceded sexual activity but argued consent, explicitly not relying on mistaken belief in consent.

The case hinged on the credibility of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused engaged in deceitful conduct to create an opportunity for sexual activity, exploiting the complainant's trust and vulnerability as a client seeking therapeutic massage.

The complainant's testimony regarding lack of consent was accepted, and the accused's account was deemed implausible and incredible.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent and that the accused knew the sexual contact was unwanted.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

Mr. Paucsek was charged with assault with a weapon and aggravated assault after stabbing his wife with a samurai sword.

He claimed self-defence, arguing his wife violently attacked him.

The Crown conceded the wife used force but argued Mr. Paucsek's response was unreasonable.

The court applied the objective reasonableness test under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, considering factors like the parties' physical capabilities, history of violence, and the accused's retreat.

The court found the wife's testimony unreliable and accepted Mr. Paucsek's account of being attacked.

Given the prior severe beating and the current assault, the court found Mr. Paucsek's use of the sword, though unusual, was a reasonable and proportional response in the circumstances.

Mr. Paucsek was found not guilty.

This criminal trial addressed charges of impaired operation, over 80 mg, flight from police, and dangerous operation.

The impaired operation charge was dismissed by the Crown due to insufficient evidence.

The court excluded breath test results for the over 80 mg charge under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding a serious and systemic s. 10(b) breach by the Ottawa Police Service regarding the immediacy of the right to counsel, despite a weak impact on the accused's rights.

The accused was found guilty of flight from a peace officer and dangerous operation, based on his actions in a parking garage, including ignoring police commands and driving dangerously.

Mark Godwin pleaded not guilty to impaired operation and over 80 mg.

The defence sought to exclude breath test results, alleging violations of Charter sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the police fulfilled their s. 10(b) obligations to facilitate access to counsel, the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable (no s. 8 breach), and the continued detention was lawful (no s. 9 breach) given the accused's high blood alcohol readings.

The court found the accused guilty of both charges, concluding that the breath test results were admissible and that there was ample evidence of impairment even without the readings.

J.R. pleaded guilty to one count of indecent assault male, an offence committed approximately 40 years prior when the victim was 17 and J.R. was 28.

The incident involved attempted anal penetration and occurred while J.R. was in a position of trust as the victim's uncle and a Boy Scout leader.

The court considered aggravating factors including the severe abuse of trust, the victim's vulnerability, the profound psychological harm caused, and the attempted unprotected anal intercourse.

Mitigating factors included J.R.'s age, his guilty plea (though entered on the first day of trial), and his lack of prior criminal record.

Applying the principles from *R. v. Friesen*, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, acknowledging the historical nature of the offence and the limitations on applying modern sentencing ranges.

A sentence of four years imprisonment was imposed, along with ancillary orders for DNA, SOIRA registration, a no-contact order with the victim while in custody, and a weapons prohibition.