Explore legal case studies in Canada … including Criminal Defence case studies, Immigration trial experience and Personal Injury case summaries.
Decisions
Published Record
Preserved
Across Canada
A reported decision may address a trial, appeal, pre-trial application, tribunal matter or sentencing rather than the final outcome.
COURT DECISIONS
21 CASES
[2026] · Charges Withdrawn · Newmarket
[2026] · Charge Withdrawn · Toronto
[2025] · Acquitted · Toronto
[2025] · Acquitted · Brampton
[2025] · Acquitted · Brampton
[2024] A.J. No. 1235
[2024] BCSC No. 1597
[2024] B.C.J. No. 376
[2024] B.C.J. No. 307
[2023] B.C.J. No. 2234
[2023] B.C.J. No. 206
[2022] B.C.J. No. 1834
[2022] B.C.J. No. 1850
[2022] (WCAT) A1901318
[2021] B.C.J. No. 1949
[2021] (WCAT) A2000630
[2021] (WCAT) A1702186
[2021] B.C.J. No. 1217
[2021] B.C.J. No. 926
[2021] B.C.J. No. 700
[2021] B.C.J. No. 304
COURT DECISIONS
23 CASES
[2020] B.C.J. No. 956
[2020] B.C.J. No. 1689
[2020] B.C.J. No. 35
[2020] (WCAT) A2000104
[2020] (WCAT) A1902754
READ DECISION : McGowan v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
[2019] ABTSB 1539
[2019] B.C.J. No. 518
[2019] B.C.J. No. 162
[2019] B.C.J. No. 908
[2018] A.J. No. 1632
[2018] B.C.J. No. 3182
[2018] B.C.J. No. 3092
[2018] WCAT A1700172
2018 ABQB 1057
[2017] (WCAT) A1603328
[2017] B.C.J. No. 2757
[2016] B.C.J. No. 527
[2016] B.C.J. No. 2045
[2016] B.C.J. No. 564
[2016] B.C.J. No. 540
[2016] I.L.R. para. I-5828
[2016] B.C.J. No. 540
[2016] (WCAT) A1603218
READ DECISION : McGowan v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
COURT DECISIONS
16 CASES
[2015] A.J. No. 1348
[2015] B.C.J. No. 3016
[2014] B.C.J. No. 3152
[2014] B.C.J. No. 3149
[2014] B.C.J. No. 215
[2013] B.C.J. No. 2736
[2013] A.J. No. 850
[2013] B.C.J. No. 1632
[2012] B.C.J. No. 1737
[2012] B.C.J. No. 463
[2012] B.C.J. No. 1298
[2011] A.J. No. 286
[2011] B.C.J. No. 2774
[2011] A.J. No. 696
[2011] B.C.J. No. 1119
[2011] B.C.J. No. 305
COURT DECISIONS
17 CASES
[2010] B.C.J. No. 2237
[2010] A.J. No. 1113
[2010] A.J. No. 1045
[2010] A.J. No. 819
[2010] B.C.J. No. 1899
[2010] A.J. No. 697
[2009] I.A.D.D. No. 1410
READ DECISION : Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2008] I.A.D.D. No. 1994
READ DECISION : Ponaich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2008] I.A.D.D. No. 1973
READ DECISION : Narayan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2008] WCAT-2008-02404
[2007] I.A.D.D. No. 1347
READ DECISION : Dhillon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2007] I.A.D.D. No. 1316
READ DECISION : Bhardwaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2007] A.J. No. 706
[2006] S.C.C.A. No. 387
[2006] F.C.J. No. 1607
READ DECISION : Buttar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2006] I.A.D.D. No. 837
READ DECISION : Dhillon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2006] A.J. No. 963
COURT DECISIONS
20 CASES
[2005] I.A.D.D. No. 1513
READ DECISION : Virk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2005] A.J. No. 228
[2005] A.J. No. 283
[2004] A.J. No. 1545
[2004] A.J. No. 674
[2004] A.J. No. 642
[2003] A.J. No. 1703
[2003] A.J. No. 898
[2002] A.J. No. 1549
[2001] I.A.D.D. No. 1461
READ DECISION : Kalkat v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2001] A.J. No. 632
[2000] A.J. No. 170
[2000] I.A.D.D. No. 1617
READ DECISION : Toor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[1999] I.A.D.D. No. 2576
READ DECISION : Atwal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[1998] A.J. No. 49
[1997] T.C.J. No. 426
READ DECISION : Ethier v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.)
[1997] I.A.D.D. No. 240
READ DECISION : Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[1996] A.J. No. 1216
[1996] A.J. No. 990
[1996] I.A.D.D. No. 945
READ DECISION : Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
COURT DECISIONS
92 CASES
[2024] A.J. No. 1235
[2024] BCSC No. 1597
[2024] B.C.J. No. 376
[2024] B.C.J. No. 307
[2023] B.C.J. No. 2234
[2023] B.C.J. No. 206
[2022] B.C.J. No. 1834
[2022] B.C.J. No. 1850
[2022] (WCAT) A1901318
[2021] B.C.J. No. 1949
[2021] (WCAT) A2000630
[2021] (WCAT) A1702186
[2021] B.C.J. No. 1217
[2021] B.C.J. No. 926
[2021] B.C.J. No. 700
[2021] B.C.J. No. 304
[2020] B.C.J. No. 956
[2020] B.C.J. No. 1689
[2020] B.C.J. No. 35
[2020] (WCAT) A2000104
[2020] (WCAT) A1902754
READ DECISION : McGowan v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
[2019] ABTSB 1539
[2019] B.C.J. No. 518
[2019] B.C.J. No. 162
[2019] B.C.J. No. 908
[2018] A.J. No. 1632
[2018] B.C.J. No. 3182
[2018] B.C.J. No. 3092
[2018] WCAT A1700172
2018 ABQB 1057
[2017] (WCAT) A1603328
[2017] B.C.J. No. 2757
[2016] B.C.J. No. 527
[2016] B.C.J. No. 2045
[2016] B.C.J. No. 564
[2016] B.C.J. No. 540
[2016] I.L.R. para. I-5828
[2016] B.C.J. No. 540
[2016] (WCAT) A1603218
READ DECISION : McGowan v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
[2015] A.J. No. 1348
[2015] B.C.J. No. 3016
[2014] B.C.J. No. 3152
[2014] B.C.J. No. 3149
[2014] B.C.J. No. 215
[2013] B.C.J. No. 2736
[2013] A.J. No. 850
[2013] B.C.J. No. 1632
[2012] B.C.J. No. 1737
[2012] B.C.J. No. 463
[2012] B.C.J. No. 1298
[2011] A.J. No. 286
[2011] B.C.J. No. 2774
[2011] A.J. No. 696
[2011] B.C.J. No. 1119
[2011] B.C.J. No. 305
[2010] B.C.J. No. 2237
[2010] A.J. No. 1113
[2010] A.J. No. 1045
[2010] A.J. No. 819
[2010] B.C.J. No. 1899
[2010] A.J. No. 697
[2009] I.A.D.D. No. 1410
READ DECISION : Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2008] I.A.D.D. No. 1994
READ DECISION : Ponaich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2008] I.A.D.D. No. 1973
READ DECISION : Narayan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2008] WCAT-2008-02404
[2007] I.A.D.D. No. 1347
READ DECISION : Dhillon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2007] I.A.D.D. No. 1316
READ DECISION : Bhardwaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2007] A.J. No. 706
[2006] S.C.C.A. No. 387
[2006] F.C.J. No. 1607
READ DECISION : Buttar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2006] I.A.D.D. No. 837
READ DECISION : Dhillon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2006] A.J. No. 963
[2005] I.A.D.D. No. 1513
READ DECISION : Virk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2005] A.J. No. 228
[2005] A.J. No. 283
[2004] A.J. No. 1545
[2004] A.J. No. 674
[2004] A.J. No. 642
[2003] A.J. No. 1703
[2003] A.J. No. 898
[2002] A.J. No. 1549
[2001] I.A.D.D. No. 1461
READ DECISION : Kalkat v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2001] A.J. No. 632
[2000] A.J. No. 170
[2000] I.A.D.D. No. 1617
READ DECISION : Toor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[1999] I.A.D.D. No. 2576
READ DECISION : Atwal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[1998] A.J. No. 49
[1997] T.C.J. No. 426
READ DECISION : Ethier v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.)
[1997] I.A.D.D. No. 240
READ DECISION : Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[1996] A.J. No. 1216
[1996] A.J. No. 990
[1996] I.A.D.D. No. 945
READ DECISION : Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
These criminal defence case studies present selected reported decisions from matters handled by Brij Mohan & Associates. They include acquittals, dismissed charges, evidentiary applications, jury-selection rulings and sentencing decisions from courts in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.
Every criminal matter turns on its own evidence, applicable law and procedural history. A successful result in one case does not guarantee the same result in another case. Some decisions below address a specific application rather than the final verdict.
Call Brij Mohan & Associates to request a confidential consultation.
BEFORE YOU BEGIN
These are short overviews. They do not reproduce every fact, argument, ruling or condition in the published reasons.
A decision may concern a trial, appeal, pre-trial application or sentencing. Read it according to the issue the judge was asked to decide.
A ruling may be important without deciding the full prosecution. Trial results may include an acquittal, conviction, dismissal or mixed verdict.
Charter cases examine police conduct, disclosure, delay, detention, search powers or admissibility. The remedy depends on the violation and fairness.
A not-guilty decision does not require the defence to prove innocence. The Crown must prove every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reported rulings reflecting issues of credibility, evidence and the right to a fair trial.
The accused was tried in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench on one count of sexual assault. The Crown called four witnesses, while the accused testified in his own defence. The central issue was whether the evidence proved the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found that alcohol consumption and post-event reconstruction affected the reliability of crucial evidence. The accused remained consistent, and much of his evidence was unchallenged. The court concluded that the Crown had not met the criminal standard of proof and found the accused not guilty.
The defence applied to use two documents written by the complainant in a prosecution involving sexual assault and possession of child pornography. The documents appeared relevant to credibility and statements about the relationship.
The Ontario Superior Court allowed limited cross-examination about an alleged inconsistency. The later trial produced a mixed verdict: not guilty of possession of child pornography and guilty of sexual assault—showing why an evidentiary ruling must be distinguished from the final verdict.
The accused faced allegations involving cocaine and morphine found in a transport truck at the Canada–United States border. Before the jury trial, the defence raised concerns about pre-trial publicity and potential bias.
The court permitted two challenge-for-cause questions addressing what prospective jurors had heard and whether it would affect their ability to decide the case fairly using only the evidence presented in court.
Suspicion is not proof. The Crown must establish every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.
The accused faced impaired driving, dangerous driving and over-80 charges after a motor vehicle accident. The main issue was the driver’s identity. Although a witness saw the accused emerge from the driver’s side, the defence evidence was that the occupants changed seats after the collision. The court found the circumstances suspicious but insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt. All charges were dismissed.
[2002] A.J. No. 1549 and [2003] A.J. No. 898
The accused faced a sexual-assault charge and sought production of selected psychiatric, group-home and transportation records. The defence argued that certain records were relevant to the complainant’s ability to testify, the issues at trial and the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.
The 2002 application was allowed in part. After reviewing the records in 2003, the court directed specified portions to be released under strict conditions.
The decisions demonstrate the balance between an accused person’s right to a fair trial and a complainant’s privacy, dignity and equality interests. A court may permit targeted disclosure without allowing unrestricted access to private records.
A sentencing decision answers a different legal question from a verdict and applies its own governing principles.
[2019] B.C.J. No. 162 | 2019 BCSC 147
Three young people were sentenced following convictions connected to a fatal group attack. G.C.A.R., represented by B. Mohan and S. Kalkat, had been convicted of manslaughter. The Crown sought adult sentences.
The court applied the Youth Criminal Justice Act and imposed three years of youth custody and supervision.
The accused was sentenced after a conviction for possessing ketamine for trafficking. The case involved 23.15 kilograms concealed in industrial rollers shipped from India. The Crown sought four to six years.
The court imposed three years’ imprisonment and related orders, considering the offence’s seriousness, the accused’s role, personal circumstances, prior record, immigration consequences and comparable cases.
[2012] B.C.J. No. 1737 | 2012 BCPC 278
The accused appeared for sentencing after conviction for assaulting his spouse. The defence relied on his lack of record, employment, family responsibilities and difficult circumstances.
The court declined a conditional discharge but did not impose incarceration. It ordered a suspended sentence and 12 months’ probation, including counselling and other conditions.
[2014] B.C.J. No. 215 | 2014 BCSC 194
The mandatory sentence was life imprisonment, and the issue was parole ineligibility. The court accepted a joint submission for the minimum 10 years before eligibility.
The reasons treated the accused’s schizophrenia as mitigating, though not excusing the offence, and considered the sentence’s effect on his wife and young children.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE
A court cannot convict because an allegation appears possible. Credibility, reliability, identification, competing accounts and surrounding circumstances may affect whether the Crown proves each element.
Applications concerning records, cross-examination, jury selection, disclosure or admissibility may define what the judge or jury can consider.
Trial determines whether a charge is proven. Sentencing determines a fit and proportionate consequence after a plea or conviction.
Sexual-offence and youth decisions may use initials because publication bans protect identities. Case summaries must preserve those protections.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
General answers about the court decisions and legal principles summarized on this page.
A criminal defence case study is a short explanation of a reported court decision. It may summarize the charge, legal issue, evidence, ruling and outcome.
No. A previous acquittal does not predict another result. Your outcome depends on the charge, evidence, witnesses, police conduct, applicable law and decisions made during the case.
A not-guilty verdict means the Crown did not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not require the accused to prove innocence.
Yes, in appropriate circumstances. Evidence may be inadmissible under an evidence rule or excluded because a Charter breach justifies that remedy. The legal test depends on the evidence and remedy requested.
A charge may be dismissed after trial when the Crown fails to prove it. It may also end because the prosecution cannot proceed, a remedy is granted or another legal ruling resolves the matter.
No. Some decide only a preliminary issue such as disclosure, cross-examination, jury selection, delay or sentencing. Check the heading and procedural history before treating a ruling as the final outcome.
Yes. A conviction and sentence may create immigration consequences for a permanent resident or foreign national. Criminal and immigration advice should be coordinated as early as possible.
Call the firm for a confidential consultation. A criminal defence lawyer can review the allegations, disclosure, release conditions, court dates and possible defence strategy.
DON’T FACE THE SYSTEM ALONE
Brij Mohan & Associates serves clients through offices in Surrey, Brampton, Calgary and Edmonton. The firm handles matters ranging from shoplifting and driving offences to drug allegations, sexual offences and homicide cases.
Speak with our legal team about your charge or these criminal defence case studies.
