Vivekta Singh

The defendant, M.G., was charged with sexual assault stemming from an alleged incident on a first date in 2001, reported by the complainant, D.A., in 2016.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of D.A.'s testimony, finding significant inconsistencies between her account and that of a Crown witness, C.I., regarding the details of the alleged assault and prior conversations.

The court also considered M.G.'s exculpatory testimony, finding him to be a credible witness doing his best to recall events from nineteen years prior.

Ultimately, the court found that the Crown had not proven the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

He voluntarily surrendered three hard drives containing a small collection of child pornography to police after experiencing a medical emergency, without any prior police investigation.

The Crown sought six months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a twelve-month conditional sentence with nine months of house arrest followed by three months of curfew, combined with three years of probation and one hundred hours of community service.

The sentencing was exceptional, as the court found this to be an extremely rare case where a conditional sentence was appropriate despite the serious nature of child pornography offences, given the defendant's significant mental health issues, small collection size, voluntary self-reporting, guilty plea, and demonstrated commitment to treatment.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of hydromorphone, and possession of proceeds of crime following a search warrant execution at an apartment.

The court found that the search warrant lacked sufficient grounds for issuance due to the Crown's failure to disclose the confidential informant tearaway (Appendix E) and inadequate corroborating surveillance.

Although the defendant lacked standing to challenge the apartment search, the court found his arrest and personal search unlawful under section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence seized from the defendant's person was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in insufficient evidence to proceed on the trafficking and proceeds of crime charges.

The simple possession charge also failed due to insufficient evidence of the defendant's knowledge and control.

The defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to murder two individuals with an aluminum baseball bat and received facts regarding possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and threatening to cause death.

The offences arose from a premeditated attack on the victims, who were connected to the defendant's prior conviction for sexual interference with a minor.

The defendant, while on parole and in violation of release conditions, traveled to the victims' home, disabled their vehicles, held them at gunpoint, bound them with zip ties, and attacked them with a baseball bat, causing serious injuries including skull fractures, brain bleeds, and in one victim's case, a subsequent brain aneurysm.

The court sentenced the defendant to 13 years imprisonment, considering aggravating factors including specific intent to kill, planning and deliberation, prolonged duration of attack, and violation of parole conditions, while noting the defendant's paraplegia resulting from police gunfire during apprehension.

A young person was found guilty at trial of three counts of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and one count of unlawful confinement committed at age 16, and pleaded guilty to one count of uttering threats, one count of criminal harassment, and two counts of failing to comply with probation terms committed as an adult.

The offences were committed against the mother of his child over a prolonged period involving repeated physical and sexual violence, followed by years of harassment via social media.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years custody and community supervision for the youth offences and three years imprisonment for the adult offences, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, weapons prohibitions, and no-contact orders.

The accused was charged with assault, uttering a threat to cause death, and two counts of breach of probation arising from an incident on April 4, 2018.

The Crown alleged the accused head-butted the complainant and threatened to kill her if she called police.

The accused denied the assault and threat, claiming the complainant was the aggressor during an argument about his Facebook relationship status.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to material inconsistencies in her 911 call and credibility concerns.

While a physical altercation likely occurred, the court could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the assault and threat charges.

The accused was acquitted of assault, uttering a threat, and breach of the peace condition, but convicted of the breach of probation charge relating to contact with the complainant.

Two child protection cases were heard on the same date following the proclamation of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 into force on April 30, 2018.

The first case involved an 11-year-old autistic child brought into care due to the mother's inability to manage significant behavioural problems.

The second case involved an infant under two months old brought into care due to the mother's mental health concerns.

Both cases were at the case conference stage with adjournments granted to allow the Children's Aid Societies to develop service plans consistent with the new statutory purposes and to report back to the court.

The defendant was sentenced for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (5.5 ounces) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought 2.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a creative sentencing approach combining an intermittent sentence on the drug charge with a conditional sentence on the proceeds charge.

The court rejected the defence proposal, finding no exceptional circumstances warranted departure from established sentencing ranges.

The court imposed 15 months imprisonment on the trafficking charge and 6 months concurrent on the proceeds charge, followed by 30 months probation with 160 hours community service.

A defendant was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in prescription drugs following a traffic stop and roadside search.

The court conducted a Charter application to determine whether evidence obtained during the stop should be excluded.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the investigative detention, the warrantless search of her purse and vehicle, and the denial of timely access to counsel.

The court found that the detention was arbitrary, lacking reasonable suspicion; the search was unlawful, as there was no valid consent and no genuine officer safety concern; and access to counsel was improperly delayed.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these Charter breaches under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime (money over $5,000).

The Crown relied on expert evidence regarding the quantity of cocaine seized (104 grams packaged in four separate baggies), drug paraphernalia (scale, spoon, baggies), cash found in the residence, and a recorded telephone conversation.

The defence argued the cocaine was for personal use and that much of the money found belonged to the accused's partner.

The trial judge found that key facts relied upon by the Crown's expert were not proven at trial, significantly diminishing the probative value of the expert opinion.

The court found reasonable doubt existed regarding the trafficking charges and convicted only on simple possession.

The accused, Patrick McKinnon, was charged with possession of heroin and breach of recognizance.

A Charter application was brought alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 related to the traffic stop, detention, and questioning.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the initial traffic stop lawful due to a suspected Highway Traffic Act violation.

The subsequent detention of the passenger (McKinnon) was deemed lawful as it was contemporaneous with the driver's investigation and later justified by reasonable suspicion of McKinnon's involvement in alcohol consumption and marijuana possession.

The questioning and seizure of McKinnon's name were also found not to be unreasonable.

Ultimately, McKinnon was found guilty on both counts of possession of heroin and breach of recognizance.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside a summary judgment decision rendered on September 29, 2014, in a child protection matter.

The mother sought to reopen the hearing based on newly received hair follicle drug test results from May 2014 and alleged factual errors in the judgment.

The court addressed the threshold jurisdictional issue of whether it was functus officio and determined it retained discretion to reconsider the judgment prior to the order being entered.

The court found that while the mother had not exercised due diligence in obtaining the test results, the evidence would not have changed the outcome given the totality of grave concerns including the mother's historical drug use, failure to cooperate with testing, violent conduct, poor judgment in child supervision, and refusal to accept responsibility for harm to the children.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and assaulting a police sergeant with intent to resist arrest.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought 90 days imprisonment served intermittently, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected the conditional discharge as inappropriate and contrary to the public interest, finding that the accused's conduct—fleeing from police at speeds exceeding 120 km/h and resisting arrest—posed serious risks to public safety.

Instead, the court imposed a conditional sentence of 90 days to be served in the community, followed by two years probation, with strict conditions including house arrest, a driving prohibition, community service, and a DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to importing marijuana and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

She was caught at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie with 62 pounds of marijuana hidden in vehicle panels.

The Crown sought two years imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence or blended sentence.

The court rejected a pure conditional sentence but imposed a blended sentence consisting of a 90-day intermittent sentence (served on weekends over approximately seven months) for the importation offence and a 21-month conditional sentence with strict conditions for the possession for trafficking offence.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence against the offender's personal circumstances, including her lack of prior record, financial desperation, role as a courier, and family responsibilities.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing a genuine Nigerian passport that could be used to establish identity contrary to section 122(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and to misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to the true identity of a passenger that could induce an error in the administration of the Act contrary to section 127(a).

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of approximately nine months, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of one year to be served in the community with strict conditions, including house arrest for the first six months, community service, and ongoing supervision.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police officers arrested the accused as a passenger in a vehicle bearing stolen licence plates and conducted a search incidental to arrest, discovering cocaine and cash.

The court found that the arrest was unlawful because the officers lacked objectively reasonable grounds to believe the accused possessed the stolen licence plates.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding that the long-term interests of the administration of justice favoured exclusion despite the seriousness of the charges.

Both charges were dismissed.