Arun S. Maini

In a pre-trial voir dire for a second-degree murder case, the court ruled on the admissibility of a 911 call and a police statement made by the accused.

The court found that the accused was not detained during the 911 call and that his participation was voluntary.

Furthermore, the court held that the accused's subsequent statement to a detective was voluntary under the Oickle standard and that his section 10(b) Charter right to counsel was not violated.

Both the 911 call and the police statement were ruled admissible at trial.

The offenders, Theo Cleland and Hussein Karshe, were convicted of aggravated assault following a jury trial.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious group attack and injuries to the victim, and mitigating factors, such as their lack of criminal records, youth, and rehabilitative efforts.

The primary sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence, balanced with rehabilitation and restraint.

The court imposed intermittent sentences of 90 days incarceration, followed by three years of probation with conditions including community service, counselling, and restitution for uninsured expenses.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement committed against the same victim on December 26, 2016 and January 1, 2017.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court imposed a blended sentence combining 90 days of intermittent imprisonment with a one-year conditional sentence, along with three years of probation.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The sentencing decision balanced the serious nature of the offences against significant mitigating factors including the accused's youth, guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior record, mental health diagnosis and treatment, and rehabilitative potential.

A first-time offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after unprovokedly assaulting a stranger on the street while intoxicated by alcohol and drugs.

The Crown sought 4-6 months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 9-month conditional sentence with restrictive conditions including house arrest and community service, followed by 2 years probation, along with a 3-year weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The sentencing emphasized rehabilitation prospects, the offender's youth, positive response to charges, and engagement with psychological counselling addressing underlying substance abuse and mental health issues.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

Digital devices seized from the accused's residence contained 71 images and four videos meeting the Canadian definition of child pornography.

The images were categorized as Category 4 on the Oliver scale.

The accused demonstrated genuine remorse and had engaged in counselling.

The court sentenced the accused to 180 days imprisonment, imposed a DNA databank order, a ten-year SOIRA reporting obligation, and a five-year section 161 prohibition order with specific restrictions on contact with minors and internet usage.

A one-year probation order with conditions for assessment and counselling was also imposed.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of assault against her minor daughter.

The assaults occurred over a two-year period from May 2014 to February 2016, involving repeated beatings with household objects including a toilet plunger handle, rolling pin, and broom handle.

The final assault in March 2016 resulted in visible bruising and abrasions.

The court imposed a sentence of 135 days imprisonment (90 days on count 1, 45 days consecutive on count 2) followed by 18 months probation, a weapons prohibition under Section 110, and a DNA order.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives while considering the accused's remorse, guilty plea, lack of prior record, and the risk of deportation as a permanent resident.

The defendant was convicted of defrauding the Ontario government social assistance plan of $18,636.00 over three years and pleaded guilty to defrauding a Visa cardholder of $7,944.75 while awaiting trial on the first offence.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill C-10) that removed the conditional sentence option for offences with a maximum term of 14 years or life imprisonment.

The defendant argued this violated sections 12 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that the removal of the conditional sentence option does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment and does not violate the principles of fundamental justice.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault involving minors.

The offences occurred over an extended period and involved multiple victims who were under the offender's authority as a coach and mentor.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 10 months for one count, 8 months as a conditional sentence for another count, and 5 months for the third count, all to be served consecutively.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the breach of trust, grooming behaviour, and vulnerability of the victims.

The offender was also subject to DNA sampling, sex offender registration for 20 years, a 2-year probation order with conditions including sex offender counselling, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.