Trevin Mark David

The offender, M.S., was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault against his stepdaughter, SLF.

This was a re-sentencing after a successful appeal of an earlier conviction.

The court addressed two main issues: whether the Crown proved both alleged acts of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt (the "apartment incident" and the "house incident"), and whether the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, justified a departure from the four-year sentence imposed at the first trial.

The court found both incidents proven, discrediting a defence witness's testimony.

It also determined that Friesen rendered the original sentence unfit, as it emphasized higher sentences for sexual offences against children, particularly adolescents, and the primacy of denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a sentence of seven years' imprisonment, along with various ancillary orders.

Armen Avansi pleaded guilty to child abduction and disobeying a court order after taking his nearly three-year-old son to Armenia for over two years, violating a parenting order.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the child's young age, the prolonged ordeal, the breach of a court order, and the significant emotional and financial impact on the victim and her family.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea and no prior criminal record.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day of real incarceration, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation for child abduction cases, and ordered restitution for specific expenses.

The accused was charged with failing to stop and provide name and address after a motor vehicle collision that resulted in bodily harm, contrary to section 320.16(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had collided with a cyclist on a Toronto street.

After the collision, the cyclist punched the accused through the car window, injuring him.

The accused drove away without stopping or providing his name and address.

The central issue was whether the accused had a reasonable excuse for failing to stop and provide information, and if so, whether that excuse was a complete defence or whether the accused remained obligated to report the accident to police at a later time.

The accused was charged with two offences: transferring a restricted handgun without authorization contrary to s. 99(1) of the Criminal Code, and failing to report the loss or theft of the handgun contrary to s. 105(1) of the Criminal Code.

A restricted Glock 17 handgun registered to the accused was found in the possession of another individual during a search warrant execution.

The accused testified that the gun was stolen from his locked safe without his knowledge.

The Crown argued the accused unlawfully transferred the gun.

The court found that the accused's evidence, while not believed, raised a reasonable possibility that the gun was stolen rather than transferred, and accordingly dismissed both counts.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine following an arrest by York Regional Police officers who were conducting surveillance on a suspected drug dealer.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and subsequent search of his vehicle.

The court found that the officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant.

The evidence relied upon by the arresting officer was based primarily on an unreliable observation by another officer who claimed to have witnessed a "hand-to-hand" drug transaction.

The court found the arrest and searches to be unlawful Charter breaches and excluded all evidence obtained subsequent to the breach under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a vehicle search.

The Crown alleged the accused possessed 497.32 grams of cocaine found in a concealed compartment in the rear seat of his BMW.

The accused challenged the arrest and search on Charter grounds, arguing arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found a breach of section 9 of the Charter due to the officer's failure to confirm complete bail conditions before arrest, but declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

The accused was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking but acquitted of failure to comply with bail conditions due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the second cell phone was operational.

The accused applied under section 523(2)(b) of the Criminal Code to vacate a detention order following the conclusion of a preliminary hearing on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and kidnapping arising from a violent group beating.

The Crown's case relied on identification evidence including a post-arrest statement, officer identification from surveillance video, and dock identification.

The court found that the preliminary hearing evidence revealed significant admissibility challenges to the Crown's key identification evidence, particularly regarding the voluntariness of the statement and the reliability of the officer's identification.

Although the objective gravity of the offence remained extreme, the apparent strength of the Crown's case was substantially diminished.

The court granted the application and ordered the accused's release on strict conditions, finding a material change in circumstances sufficient to reconsider the necessity of detention on the tertiary ground.