Arian Khader

The self-represented accused was charged with multiple gun trafficking and related offences following an undercover police operation.

Over eight transactions, the accused sold 20 handguns and rifles, along with magazines and ammunition, to an undercover officer for over $100,000.

The court found the undercover officer's testimony credible and corroborated by surveillance, messages, and physical evidence.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly sold illegal firearms and possessed proceeds of crime.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at his residence and found a loaded prohibited handgun and extended magazines on his bed.

The accused testified that he had left his friends in his bedroom and slept in the basement, denying knowledge of the firearms.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as lacking credibility and found that the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly established his knowledge and constructive possession of the items.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicant brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to exclude evidence pursuant to sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant was charged with possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm, and possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that the redacted Information to Obtain could not support the authorization and sought to have the court review the unredacted material.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient information upon which the issuing justice could have authorized the search, and therefore no section 8 Charter breach occurred.

The application was dismissed.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought pretrial rulings on the admissibility of two pieces of evidence: photos of gas cans found on the respondent's phone and in his residence, and a text exchange between the respondent and an unidentified individual.

The respondent admitted to driving the vehicle involved in the shooting and the presence of his DNA on a glove near the later-burned vehicle.

The court ruled the gas can evidence moot for admissibility purposes after the respondent testified at trial that he urged the alleged shooter to destroy the vehicle.

The text exchange was deemed inadmissible as it was speculative and lacked sufficient context to establish that the ultimate victim was targeted.

All contentious evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The applicants, charged with first degree murder and attempted murder, brought pretrial applications to exclude evidence.

They challenged warrantless police searches (s. 8 Charter), the grounds for their arrest, and alleged excessive force during arrest and transport.

The court dismissed all applications, finding that the applicants lacked standing to challenge the searches of the rental vehicle and condominium premises, that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest, and that the force used during the dynamic takedown and subsequent transport was justified given the high-risk nature of the arrest and the applicants' resistance.

The defendant, Ronald Brown, was charged with multiple weapon and assault offences after allegedly confronting his ex-partner's new boyfriend, Sean Roberts, with a baseball bat and displaying a handgun.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the Crown's witnesses (Ms. Beard and Mr. Roberts) and the defendant.

The court found Mr. Roberts' testimony regarding the baseball bat credible and reliable, but his evidence concerning the handgun was not sufficiently reliable.

The defendant's testimony was deemed inconsistent, disingenuous, and implausible.

Brown was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a weapon, and assault with a weapon (a silver baseball bat), but not guilty of charges related to the handgun.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained by police during a murder investigation, alleging breaches of various Charter rights, including those related to search and seizure and rights upon detention.

The court analyzed the validity of production orders for banking records, warrantless review of surveillance video, the lawfulness of detention and seizure of electronic devices, and the validity and execution of a search warrant for cellphones.

The decision outlines specific findings on each alleged breach, determining some police actions were lawful while others violated the accused's Charter rights.

The accused, a 23-year-old Black man, was found guilty of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm with an over-capacity magazine.

He fled from police and discarded the firearm in a schoolyard.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from R. v. Morris, the court considered an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the impact of systemic anti-Black racism, educational disadvantages, and exposure to gun violence on the accused.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the accused's young age, lack of prior record, and good prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, A.S., brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay was 40 months and 15 days.

The court applied the Jordan framework, determining the presumptive ceiling was 30 months due to the matter having been in Superior Court.

After subtracting defence-caused delay (3 months and 27 days), the net delay was 36 months and 18 days.

The court found that the remaining delay of 33 months and 13 days (after deducting 3 months and 5 days for COVID-19 impact) exceeded the presumptive ceiling and was not justified by exceptional circumstances, including the Crown's decision to add indictable charges and then consent to re-election without a waiver.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

Kevin William Gillard pleaded guilty to assault, which was accompanied by hateful Islamophobic and racist language, and gendered targeting of a Muslim woman.

The victim sustained physical injuries and significant psychological impact.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the hate motivation under s. 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, and mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and the offender's mental health issues.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, but the court determined that denunciation and general deterrence, particularly given the hate-motivated violence, precluded a discharge.

Gillard was sentenced to a suspended sentence with two years of probation, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The offender was convicted of possessing a prohibited firearm and a high-capacity magazine.

The firearm was used by a companion in a dangerous public shooting, though the offender was acquitted of attempted murder.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the offender's background, and the impact of systemic racism on his moral blameworthiness.

A global sentence of 5 years was imposed, reduced to 2 years and 4 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and lockdown credits.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a drive-by shooting.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the firearm used and the getaway vehicle.

The court found that while the accused was involved as the driver of the vehicle, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite mens rea for party liability to attempted murder, as there was insufficient evidence he knew the shooter intended to kill the victim.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of the firearms offences.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, voyeurism, and child pornography offences against the complainant.

The police seized the accused's cell phones and obtained two search warrants.

The accused applied to exclude the digital evidence obtained from the phones, arguing the police failed to make full and frank disclosure in the Information to Obtain (ITO) by omitting recantation letters and denials from a family member.

The court found the police breached s. 8 of the Charter by conducting warrantless searches of the digital media outside the authorized scope and date ranges.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded the Charter-infringing state conduct was serious and had a high impact on the accused's privacy interests.

The digital evidence was excluded.

Sentencing decision for possession of child pornography involving an exceptionally large and highly depraved collection of images, videos, and written materials accumulated over years.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the paramount objectives under the Criminal Code and recent Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authority, particularly given the young ages of the children depicted, the graphic abuse shown, and the victim impact evidence of ongoing trauma.

Although the offender was elderly, medically frail, remorseful, and a first offender with strong community support, the court found a conditional sentence would impermissibly diminish the seriousness of the offence.

COVID-19 incarceration conditions and health risks were treated as collateral consequences but could not justify a sentence disproportionate to the gravity of the crime.

An 18-month custodial sentence was imposed together with DNA, SOIRA, and forfeiture orders.

This decision concerns the sentencing of J.T. for failing to attend court, contrary to section 145(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

J.T. was convicted after absconding during the 13th day of his second trial for sexual abuse and exploitation, fleeing to British Columbia, and assuming a new identity.

The Crown sought an 18-month sentence, while the defence proposed 3-6 months.

The court considered aggravating factors, including absconding mid-trial and assuming a new identity, and mitigating factors such as the offender's age, permanent residence in Canada, and impending deportation.

The judge imposed a 12-month sentence, less pre-sentence custody, emphasizing deterrence, denunciation, and respect for the law, and a 3-year probation order.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The proceedings spanned over 19 years, involving three trials, an appeal, and a dangerous offender application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the net pre-verdict delay was below the Jordan ceiling after deducting significant periods of defence delay—including the accused absconding and repeatedly changing counsel—and exceptional circumstances such as a mistrial.

The court also found the post-verdict delay reasonable, as it was justified by the complexity of the dangerous offender application, further defence delays, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a dangerous offender hearing, the Crown sought to abandon reliance on a court-ordered psychiatrist whose evidence was challenged in cross-examination, and instead tender the evidence of a new psychiatrist.

The defence brought an abuse of process motion under s. 7 of the Charter, arguing the Crown was seeking an improper litigation advantage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Crown was attempting to provide the court with as much information as possible to assess the offender's risk, rather than acting for an oblique motive.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and forcible confinement relating to four bank robberies.

The offender, a career criminal with a lengthy record including a conviction for murder in Thailand, used an imitation firearm and disguises during the carefully planned robberies.

The court applied the totality principle to reduce the cumulative sentence from 34 years to 21 years, resulting in a net sentence of 15 years, 6 months, and 10 days after enhanced credit for pre-trial custody and pandemic lockdowns.

The court declined the Crown's request to delay parole eligibility under s. 743.6.

W.E.G. was convicted by a jury of assault (x2), uttering a threat to cause death, and sexual assault against his common-law spouse, Ms. A. The court considered aggravating factors including the domestic nature of the offences, breach of trust, vulnerability of the complainant (a refugee), and the serious nature of the sexual assault and choking.

Mitigating factors included a dated criminal record and compliance with bail.

The court imposed a global sentence of 42 months imprisonment, allocated across the convictions, along with a mandatory weapons prohibition, DNA order, Sex Offender Registry registration for 20 years, and a non-communication order.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's lack of insight into his actions.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm under section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The victim suffered severe facial injuries requiring major reconstructive surgery including multiple fractures and orbital floor reconstruction.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years of probation, a section 110 weapons prohibition for ten years, a DNA order, and a $100 victim fine surcharge.

The sentencing considered the serious nature of the injuries, the unprovoked nature of the assault, the accused's remorse, his completion of anger management counselling, his stable employment, and his prior conditional discharges.