Andrew Newman

Fazal Zaban was convicted of manslaughter after being acquitted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Dung Le during a drug and firearms deal.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Zaban's extensive criminal record involving violence and firearms, the use of a prohibited firearm in a public place, and his failure to be deterred by previous sentences.

Mitigating factors included his supportive family, efforts at rehabilitation while incarcerated (obtaining a high school diploma, taking courses), and the exceptionally harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody, including prolonged lockdowns and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a sentence of 15 years to life, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 13 years' imprisonment, reduced from an initial assessment of 15 years due to the harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Zaban received credit for 7 years served, leaving 6 years remaining.

Mandatory lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA orders were also imposed.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of J.P.'s appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice decision.

J.P. had applied under s. 74 of the Firearms Act to review the Registrar's alleged decision to revoke his Firearms Registration Certificate, following a reclassification of certain firearms by federal regulation.

The OCJ had dismissed J.P.'s application for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in AGC v. M.C. The Superior Court dismissed J.P.'s appeal, finding that the case was not factually distinguishable from M.C. and that the OCJ correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction, as the change in firearm status was by operation of law, not a reviewable decision of the Registrar.

The plaintiff, Neda Raji, brought an action seeking damages for false arrest, detention, abuse of process, harassment, and malicious prosecution against the Attorney General of Canada, the City of Ottawa, the Ottawa Police Services Board, nine police officers (collectively "OPS defendants"), and Stephen Leach (Independent Police Review Director).

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike out the statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The Attorney General of Canada and Mr. Leach moved under r. 21.01(1)(b) for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, while the OPS defendants sought dismissal/stay under r. 21.01(3)(d) for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, or striking under r. 25.11(b) or (c).

The court found no reasonable cause of action against the Attorney General of Canada as the claims did not involve federal jurisdiction or Crown servants.

The claim against Mr. Leach was struck due to statutory immunity under the Police Services Act, as no bad faith was pleaded.

The action against the OPS defendants was dismissed as an abuse of process (attempting to re-litigate criminal matters), frivolous (lacking legal merit, incoherent pleading), and scandalous (bare allegations of conspiracy, perjury, assault, fabrication).

Leave to amend the claim was denied due to the fundamental deficiencies and the unlikelihood of a credible lawsuit emerging.

The action was dismissed in its entirety against all defendants.

The accused, L.M., pleaded guilty to child pornography offences.

The Crown sought to prove an unproven historical allegation of sexual assault involving M.L., the daughter of L.M.'s then-partner, as an aggravating fact for a potential long-term offender designation.

The court heard testimony from M.L. and her mother, N.L., and considered the challenges of assessing an adult's testimony about childhood events, including inconsistencies over time.

Applying principles from R. v. W.(R.) and R. v. A.M., the court found M.L. to be a credible and reliable witness, concluding that the sexual assault allegation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite minor inconsistencies attributed to the passage of time and the victim's age at the time of the incident.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff sought to recover over $3.4 million allegedly owed to his former company, which had been forced into bankruptcy.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of the corporation and that the claims were an abuse of process, as they resurrected issues previously struck in a 2015 action.

The motion was granted, and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The self-represented plaintiff noted all defendants in default without providing prior notice of her intention to do so.

The defendants, comprising the Attorney General of Canada, municipal police, and other officials, moved to set aside the noting in default.

The court applied the factors from Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel and found that the defendants had always intended to defend the action, acted promptly upon learning of the default, and that the plaintiff's failure to provide notice deprived them of the opportunity to respond.

The court set aside the noting in default, allowing the claims to be determined on their merits.

L.M. pleaded guilty to possessing, accessing, and distributing child pornography.

The Crown applied for an assessment to determine if L.M. should be declared a dangerous offender or a long-term offender.

The court dismissed the application for a dangerous offender assessment, finding no sufficient causal link between L.M.'s conduct and severe psychological damage to victims to classify the offences as "serious personal injury offences" (SPIO) under s.752 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court granted the application for an assessment to determine if L.M. might be a long-term offender under s.753.1, given his criminal history and risk of reoffending.

The offender, Michael Johnson, pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired operation causing death, two counts of dangerous operation causing death, one count of impaired driving causing bodily harm, and one count of dangerous operation causing bodily harm.

These charges stemmed from a high-speed collision (161 km/h in a 50 km/h zone) while impaired (BAC 1.5-2x legal limit) that resulted in the deaths of two pedestrians and serious injury to a third.

The defence argued that the offender's suicidal ideation at the time of the collision should be a mitigating factor, while the Crown argued it was an aggravating factor due to the foreseeable risk to public safety.

The court found the offender's moral blameworthiness to be significant, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation.

The court concluded that driving recklessly with suicidal intent on a public street constitutes an aggravating factor.

A sentence of six years imprisonment was imposed, along with a 10-year driving prohibition and a DNA order.

Heeralal Ramdeo was convicted after a judge-alone trial for kidnapping, use of an imitation firearm to commit assault, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace.

The Crown alleged Ramdeo masterminded the kidnapping of Dharwant Gill to locate Paul, who had stolen drugs from Ramdeo.

Gill's testimony, though inconsistent and from an unsavoury witness (treated as Vetrovec), was corroborated by other evidence.

The court found a conspiracy proven beyond a reasonable doubt and Ramdeo's probable membership.

Ramdeo's defence was rejected as unreasonable.

He was found guilty on most counts but acquitted of uttering threats due to reasonable doubt regarding the specific content of threats.

Omnibus Garofoli application challenging the naming of multiple accused persons in two authorizations to intercept private communications issued in Project Kraken, an investigation into criminal activity by the Deep Waters and Chester Le gangs in Toronto.

The applicants challenged their inclusion as named targets in the first authorization (March 25, 2019) and second authorization (May 21, 2019), as well as the inclusion of Maral Ashoury's telephone number in an earlier Transmission Data Recorder warrant (February 11, 2019).

The court applied the deferential Garofoli standard of review and upheld the authorizations, finding sufficient reliable evidence that the interception of the applicants' communications could assist in the investigation of criminal organization offences.

The defendant was charged with breach of recognizance (violation of house arrest) and failure to stop for a peace officer as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Crown proved the defendant was operating the vehicle and that police were pursuing him.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the defendant failed to stop as soon as reasonable, given the short timeframe between when police activated emergency lights and when the defendant stopped in a plaza.

The court also found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's intent to evade police while operating the motor vehicle.

The defendant was convicted on Count 1 (breach of recognizance) but acquitted on Count 2 (failure to stop for peace officer).

The accused was charged with serious offences including kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, extortion, conspiracy, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of property obtained by crime, and drug possession.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed release on house arrest with his mother as primary surety, supported by his uncle and girlfriend.

The court found the Crown met its onus on both grounds and ordered detention.

The court found the accused played a mid-level role in a planned, prolonged kidnapping and torture scheme, and that the proposed sureties lacked sufficient knowledge and control over the accused despite their good intentions.