Amadeus DiCarlo

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, is a dual status offender currently serving a custodial sentence for a subsequent aggravated assault.

The Board unanimously found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered that upon his release from custody, the accused shall be subject to a Detention Order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with an added condition prohibiting the possession of weapons.

The offender was convicted of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, after racing his vehicle while impaired and causing a fatal collision.

The Crown sought 5-6 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found a conditional sentence inappropriate and sentenced the offender to 5 years in the penitentiary, alongside a 6-year driving prohibition, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The accused, Azar Sheikh, was charged with impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, drive over 80 causing death and bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm following a fatal collision.

The Crown's case relied on inferences from eyewitness observations, expert toxicologist opinions regarding alcohol and MDMA levels, and accident reconstruction evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm.

However, the accused was acquitted of the "drive over 80" charges due to reasonable doubt regarding the precise blood alcohol concentration at the time of the collision, given the variability in testing methods.

The court emphasized that the accused's impairment and excessive speed were significant contributing factors to the collision, well beyond de minimis.

Two young persons were charged with armed robbery contrary to Section 343(d) of the Criminal Code, weapons dangerous, and assault with a weapon arising from an incident on August 28, 2013.

The Crown's case rested on the evidence of two complainants who were robbed at gunpoint in their apartment.

The defendants claimed they attended the apartment for a prearranged liaison with sex trade workers, that one defendant had a change of heart regarding payment, and that they fled without committing robbery.

The court found that the complainants' evidence was credible despite their downplaying of sex trade activities generally occurring in the apartment.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence regarding the circumstances and found that a robbery occurred while armed with an offensive weapon.

The court was not satisfied that a real firearm was used but found that an offensive weapon resembling a handgun was used.

The accused was charged with three counts: assault on Charmaine Mangaoang (his wife), uttering a death threat to Charmaine Mangaoang, and assault on Robbin Patrick MacDonald (a tenant).

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial involved conflicting testimony regarding domestic violence allegations and a physical altercation between the accused and the tenant.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts based on the credible testimony of the tenant and an independent witness, while rejecting the testimony of the accused and his wife as not credible and potentially collusive.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual interference with a young person under 16 years contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The alleged offences occurred on June 6, 2011, in Milton, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, her sister, the accused's girlfriend at the time, and the accused himself.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and consistent, while rejecting the testimony of the defence witnesses as unreliable and self-serving.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts and registered a stay on one count pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The defendant was convicted after plea of internet child luring contrary to Section 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant communicated online with a 17-year-old complainant under false pretences, claiming to be a pornographic modelling agent, and arranged to meet her for sexual purposes.

The defendant also engaged with a fictional 14-year-old character created by police.

The Crown sought 9 to 12 months imprisonment plus three years probation, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation.

The defence argued for a lengthy conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring, house arrest for the first nine months, curfew for the second nine months, community service, counselling, and restrictions on internet use.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and need for deterrence against the defendant's guilty plea, lack of prior relevant record, and prospects for rehabilitation in the community.