Amy Robin Barkin

This sentencing decision addresses the conviction of Waisuddin Akbari for uttering threats to bomb synagogues and kill Jewish people, motivated by hate and prejudice.

The court carefully considers the Kienapple principle regarding multiple convictions arising from the same act but finds the two offences distinct.

The sentencing analysis balances aggravating factors, notably the hate-motivated nature of the threats and their impact on the Jewish community, with mitigating factors including Akbari’s background, remorse, and community support.

The court rejects a conditional discharge as contrary to public interest and imposes a 60-day conditional sentence order with strict house arrest conditions, followed by three years probation, DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

This sentencing decision addresses a hate-motivated assault involving spitting and hateful Nazi-related language and gestures directed at Jewish victims.

The court found the offender guilty of assault and breach of probation, emphasizing the aggravating factor of hate motivation under section 718.2(a)(1) of the Criminal Code.

The decision carefully considers victim and community impact statements, the offender’s prior criminal record, mental health background, and lack of remorse.

The court imposed a 12-month jail sentence followed by two years probation, along with DNA and s.110 orders, underscoring the importance of denunciation and general deterrence in hate crime sentencing.

This sentencing decision addresses the possession of a loaded restricted firearm and related offences by Chadwick Francis, who was stopped at a RIDE spot-check.

The trial focused on a racial profiling claim which was dismissed.

The judge considered the social context of systemic racism and Mr. Francis’ personal history, including his victimization by gun violence, as mitigating factors.

The decision carefully balances denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and public protection, ultimately imposing a conditional sentence order (CSO) of two years less one day with strict conditions, including GPS monitoring and probation, rather than incarceration.

The case highlights the complexity of sentencing in firearm possession cases involving racialized offenders and the evolving role of social context evidence.

The accused, Waisuddin Akbari, was charged with threatening to damage synagogues and threatening death against Jewish people following an interaction at a car dealership.

The Crown alleged that the accused made explicit threats to plant bombs in Toronto synagogues to kill Jews, which the accused denied, claiming he joked about bombing a casino due to gambling debts and was ignorant of Jewish terms.

The trial focused on the credibility of the complainant and the accused.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. framework, finding the accused's testimony vague, inconsistent, and evasive, while the complainant's evidence was direct and credible.

The court concluded that the accused's threats met the legal definition of unlawful threats and found him guilty on both counts.

J.H. pleaded guilty to sexual touching and invitation to sexual touching involving his intimate partner's 10-year-old daughter.

The offences occurred over four months, involving multiple incidents and a significant breach of trust.

Aggravating factors included the victim's age, the familial relationship, the nature and duration of the abuse, and the profound trauma inflicted, leading the victim to leave Canada.

Mitigating factors included J.H.'s lack of prior criminal record, early guilty plea, full confession, genuine remorse, and proactive engagement in sex-offender specific therapy, which reduced his risk of re-offending.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, guided by Supreme Court and Court of Appeal jurisprudence calling for increased sentences in child sexual abuse cases.

The Crown sought 5-6 years, while the defence sought 4-5 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 4 years imprisonment, concurrent on each count, along with a SOIRA order for life, DNA databanking, and a 10-year s. 161 order with specific prohibitions.

The accused, a Personal Support Worker, was charged with assault against two elderly, dementia-afflicted residents of a long-term care home.

The Crown alleged intentional assaults during patient transfers.

The accused testified that her physical contact with each resident was an automatic, reflexive response to being struck or scratched by the residents themselves.

The court found that the accused's actions constituted immediate, unpremeditated reactions without conscious thought or intention, falling within the middle category of a continuum between pure physiological reflex and considered reprisal.

The court acquitted the accused on both counts.

The defendant was charged with Aggravated Sexual Assault and related offences.

He had been assessed for fitness to stand trial twice and found fit on both occasions (July 18 and September 27, 2019).

The defence brought an application to determine whether a "keep fit" order was necessary under section 672.29 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the defendant remained fit and that there was no evidence to displace the presumption of fitness.

The defendant's medical needs were being adequately met at the correctional facility, and he remained able to instruct counsel.

The court declined to issue a keep fit order and adjourned the matter to set trial dates.

Hakeem Mohamed was charged with firearms offences after photos allegedly showed him holding a Glock handgun, which was later seized from a co-accused.

Initial charges of sexual assault and human trafficking were dismissed.

The trial focused on whether the object in the photos was a restricted firearm, if Mohamed possessed it with the requisite knowledge, and whether he carried it for a purpose dangerous to public peace.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the object was a real restricted firearm or that Mohamed knew it was, or that he carried it for a dangerous purpose.

Consequently, Mohamed was acquitted on all remaining firearms charges.

The defendant, Hakeem Mohamed, objected to the late disclosure of enhanced photographs by the Crown during his firearms trial.

The court considered the principles of late disclosure under s. 7 and s. 24(1) of the Charter, as well as the general exclusionary discretion.

The court found a s. 7 Charter breach due to actual prejudice to the defendant's ability to make full answer and defence, exacerbated by his in-custody status and the significant adjournment required.

The court also found that the introduction of the evidence would involve an inordinate amount of time not commensurate with its value.

Consequently, the enhanced photographs were excluded from evidence.

The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the defendant, Hakeem Mohamed, to police, while Mohamed sought to exclude it on grounds of involuntariness and Charter breaches (s. 10(a) and 10(b)).

The court found that police comments constituted an implied threat, rendering part of the statement involuntary.

Additionally, the police failed to inform Mohamed of his full jeopardy regarding potential firearm charges, breaching his s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that the entire statement should be excluded from evidence.

Andre Evans, an adult offender, sought orders of prohibition and certiorari to prevent the Crown from using his youth records as an aggravating factor in his sentencing hearing.

The Crown had previously obtained an order from a youth court justice under s. 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to access these records after the prescribed access period expired.

Evans argued that the youth court justice exceeded jurisdiction by granting access and that using the records would compromise his right to a fair trial due to principles of privacy and rehabilitation for young persons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the youth court justice acted within jurisdiction and that society's interest in truth-seeking and public safety outweighed Evans' privacy interest, which could be protected by a publication ban.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault causing bodily harm under s. 272(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved the brutal sexual assault of an eighteen-year-old virgin victim in the early morning hours of January 1, 2016, in Newmarket.

The offender, intoxicated by cocaine and alcohol, followed the victim from a bus, dragged her onto a snow bank, and subjected her to multiple forms of sexual violence including forced oral sex and vaginal intercourse.

The victim suffered physical injuries and profound psychological trauma.

The court imposed a sentence of eight years in the penitentiary, less enhanced credit for presentence custody, resulting in 5 years and 10.5 months remaining to be served.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a 20-year Sexual Offender Information Registry Act order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial involved a blended hearing on Charter applications.

The court found two breaches of the accused's Charter rights: a section 8 breach arising from videotaping of the accused using the toilet in the police cell without adequate pixelation, and a section 9 breach arising from arbitrary detention for approximately four and a half hours after breath samples were obtained.

The court excluded the breath readings under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with multiple offences arising from interactions with the complainant on October 20, 2015 and November 10, 2015, including assault, unlawful confinement, sexual assault, and threats.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence to be significantly undermined by contradictions, memory lapses, and inconsistencies regarding key details, particularly concerning the nature of contact (water versus spittle) and the sequence of events.

The defendant's credibility was also compromised by lies told to police, though his explanations for some events had a ring of truth.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault on October 20, 2015 (for holding and pushing the complainant into a car) and breach of recognizance on November 10, 2015.

The defendant was acquitted of unlawful confinement on October 20, 2015, and all charges arising from November 10, 2015 (sexual assault, assault, and unlawful confinement), as the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts relating to child sexual exploitation: attempt to live on the avails of a person under 18, exercise control, procuring, and child luring.

The accused, along with two co-accused, lured three young girls aged 14 and 15 into prostitution at the Scarborough Town Centre.

The Crown sought 5 years imprisonment less pre-trial custody credit, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years, finding this to be the minimum necessary to meet sentencing principles.

The court credited 1,157 days of pre-trial custody at the 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in 303 days remaining to be served, followed by 2 years probation and a 10-year s.161 order.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempting to live on avails, exercising control, and procuring minors for prostitution.

Three girls aged 14-15 were recruited at a shopping mall and exploited in a prostitution scheme.

The Crown sought four years imprisonment; the defence sought three to three-and-a-half years.

The court imposed a four-year sentence, finding it the minimum necessary to meet sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence given the serious harm to the young victims and the cruel exploitation involved.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 after being found outside his vehicle in a parking lot at 3:46 a.m.

The Crown alleged the accused had care and control of the motor vehicle while impaired.

The accused testified he had consumed six to seven beers and whiskey, decided to take a taxi home, and sat in his vehicle with the seat reclined and keys on the dashboard while waiting for the rain to stop.

The court found the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, applying the three-part test from R. v. Boudreault: intentional conduct associated with the vehicle, impairment, and a realistic risk of danger.

The court found the accused had rebutted the presumption of care and control by establishing an alternative plan to get home safely and demonstrating awareness of his condition through his actions.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempted robbery committed at a shopping mall parking lot.

The offender, a youthful individual with significant mental health issues including paranoid schizophrenia and ADHD, approached the complainant's vehicle and demanded money while his hand was in his jacket pocket, creating the impression of a weapon.

No money was taken and no actual weapon was found.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation, taking into account the offender's youth, mental health conditions, minor criminal record, the relatively minor nature of the attempted robbery, and substantial credit for 20 months of stringent house arrest bail conditions.

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual interference involving his grandchildren between 2010 and 2011, and with historical charges of gross indecency and indecent assault between 1975 and 1979.

Following a lengthy trial with evidence heard over multiple days, the court dismissed all charges.

The court found the two younger complainants not credible, as they admitted to fabricating stories and lies to get people in trouble.

The court also found that the conduct involving the third grandchild did not constitute sexual assault, as it involved appropriate parental instruction and medical care.

Regarding the historical charges, the court granted a stay of proceedings due to the loss of critical investigative evidence, and alternatively found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual interference involving his grandchildren between 2010 and 2011, as well as historical charges of gross indecency and indecent assault between 1975 and 1979.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence on a count-to-count basis and evidence of a prior conviction in 2000 involving sexual assault and possession of child pornography.

The trial judge conducted a ruling on the admissibility of similar fact evidence under the framework established in R. v. Handy.

The court dismissed the Crown's application to admit the similar fact evidence, finding insufficient connectedness between the various allegations and significant concerns regarding collusion, tainting, and credibility of the witnesses.