Yogesh Gupta

The accused, Ivan Marincic, was sentenced for dangerous driving simpliciter after a motor vehicle collision caused life-altering injuries to another driver.

The sentencing hearing addressed whether the court had jurisdiction to award damages or costs for serious Charter violations by police during Marincic's arrest.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award civil damages or costs in a criminal proceeding, emphasizing that such remedies must be sought through civil actions.

Despite the severe police misconduct, a stay of proceedings was deemed inappropriate due to the seriousness of the offence and the victim's injuries.

As a remedy for the Charter violations, the court imposed a significantly reduced sentence of nine months, to be served as a conditional sentence.

The applicants, Ajitpal Gill and Gurvinder Kang, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged infringements of their rights under Sections 7, 9, and 12.

They claimed excessive force by police during arrest and a breach of their right to be brought before a justice within 24 hours as per Section 503 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while some police conduct was unprofessional, it did not amount to a substantial interference with the applicants' physical and psychological integrity, especially given the serious and dangerous circumstances preceding the arrest.

Regarding the 24-hour rule breach, the Crown conceded the breach, but the court found it to be technical and inconsequential, causing no actual prejudice.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Dean Archibald was found guilty of aggravated assault, assault, theft under $5000, and mischief under $5000.

The aggravated assault caused severe facial fractures and unconsciousness to one victim, a building superintendent, and the other victim was assaulted while attempting to call for help, with her phone destroyed.

The Crown sought a five-year jail sentence, while the Defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the unprovoked and vicious nature of the attack, significant victim impact, and interference with aid, alongside mitigating factors such as harsh pre-sentence custody and the offender's delusional disorder.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' incarceration, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate given the gravity of the offences.

The defendant, P.N., was accused of seven counts including assault, mischief, threatening death, and sexual assault by his ex-girlfriend.

The court found significant issues with the complainant's credibility and reliability, including shifting testimony, a strong motive to fabricate allegations due to the defendant's deception about his marriage, and the perjury of a key Crown witness (the complainant's roommate).

The complainant's account of the sexual assault was deemed unlikely and lacking detail.

The defendant was found not guilty on all counts due to the Crown's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for Charter breaches (ss. 7, 8, 9, 12) related to an unlawful arrest and excessive force by police.

The Crown conceded the unlawful arrest due to a deficient Feeney warrant.

The court found that police used excessive force, violating the applicant's ss. 7 and 12 Charter rights, particularly regarding a "shield takedown" and physical contact.

However, the court determined that a stay of proceedings was not warranted as it was not one of the "clearest of cases," and alternative remedies like sentence reduction and financial restitution were available to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

The defendant, E.T., was convicted of criminal harassment under s. 264 of the Criminal Code following relentless contact with the victim after their relationship ended.

The court considered the victim's impact statement, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles, with the domestic context being an aggravating factor.

While acknowledging the defendant's rehabilitative efforts and lack of prior record, the court determined that a conditional discharge was disproportionate.

A custodial sentence was within range, but considering the defendant's rehabilitation and the COVID-19 pandemic, the court imposed a fine and probation as the least restrictive sentence to address all factors.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of criminal harassment against the accused, E.T. The complainant, after ending a brief relationship with E.T. due to his controlling and aggressive nature, received over 180 unwanted phone calls and 60 text messages from him, including calls to her workplace, causing her significant distress and fear.

The central issue was whether the complainant's subjective fear for her safety was objectively reasonable.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness and concluded that the accused's relentless and unwanted contact constituted harassment.

The court determined that the complainant's fear for her safety, encompassing psychological and emotional security, was objectively reasonable given the accused's past behaviour, controlling nature, and persistent contact despite explicit requests to cease.

The Crown successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.