V. Singh

The accused were charged with multiple offences including aggravated assault, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement against their roommate, a vulnerable individual with cognitive limitations.

The complainant suffered severe burn injuries from boiling water, which she initially claimed were self-inflicted but later testified were caused by the accused.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the sexual assault, confinement, and assault with weapons to be inconsistent and unreliable, resulting in acquittals on those charges.

However, relying on expert medical evidence that the extensive burn patterns were inconsistent with self-harm, the court found both accused guilty of aggravated assault.

The accused applied for a Rowbotham order requiring the state to fund defence counsel for pending sexual offence charges in the Superior Court of Justice and related charges in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The accused had previously discharged two legal aid lawyers on the eve of trial and Legal Aid Ontario refused to authorize a third certificate.

The court held that an accused cannot rely on a legal aid refusal caused by their own conduct to obtain publicly funded counsel and found that the appointment of amicus curiae was sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The court further found the request for funding for counsel at the preliminary inquiry stage in the Ontario Court of Justice was premature and not supported by exceptional circumstances.

The application for a Rowbotham order was therefore dismissed.

The accused brought pre-trial applications alleging breaches of their rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The police arrested the accused without a warrant based on confidential informant tips and surveillance, finding cocaine and cash.

A subsequent search warrant for the accused's residence yielded more cocaine and cash.

The court found the arrest and warrantless search were based on reasonable grounds and did not violate the Charter.

While there was a technical breach of section 8 due to the late filing of a report to a justice regarding the search warrant, the court held that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) as the police acted in good faith and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits outweighed the impact of the breach.