Ayderus Abdusalam Alawi

A preliminary inquiry into eight charges arising from the shooting of a victim in a Toronto parking lot on July 16, 2014.

Three co-accused were charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, firearm offences, and assault with a weapon.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the victim's testimony and circumstantial evidence including phone records and security camera footage.

Defence counsel conceded the sufficiency of evidence identifying each accused's role at the scene.

The court applied the Sheppard test and found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on all charges.

Following a finding of guilt for drug trafficking and related offences, the defendant brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment.

The defendant argued that the police provided him with an opportunity to commit an offence without reasonable suspicion.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police were legitimately following up on a confidential informant's tip and that the defendant's own responses to an undercover officer's initial inquiries established the requisite reasonable suspicion before any opportunity to traffic was offered.

Accused charged with cocaine trafficking offences sought a Rowbotham order staying proceedings pending state-funded counsel, arguing they lacked the financial means to retain counsel and required representation for a fair trial.

The court reviewed the established Rowbotham criteria requiring denial of legal aid, inability to afford counsel, and necessity of counsel for a fair trial.

The court found the first accused failed to provide credible or sufficient evidence of indigence and demonstrated access to significant income and discretionary spending inconsistent with financial hardship.

The second accused had been granted a legal aid certificate but sought funding for counsel of choice, which did not meet the Rowbotham threshold.

The court further held that the applicants failed to establish that the case involved sufficient complexity to require state-funded counsel.

The accused was charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to his spouse, who suffered from advanced multiple sclerosis.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish that the accused failed to provide adequate nutrition and medical care, resulting in severe malnutrition, bedsores, and ultimately contributing to the spouse's death from sepsis.

The defence argued that the accused had been a devoted caregiver for many years and that the evidence contained inferential gaps.

The court found that the Crown met the committal test, as a reasonable jury could infer that the accused failed to provide necessaries of life and that this failure constituted a marked departure from what a reasonably prudent person would do.

However, the court acknowledged significant countervailing evidence and live issues regarding the spouse's capacity to refuse treatment.

The accused was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine, two counts of possession of the proceeds of crime, and one count of obstructing justice arising from undercover police drug transactions.

An undercover officer arranged drug purchases through telephone conversations and later met the accused in person for a transaction, during which the accused attempted to conceal the drugs in his mouth when police approached.

The court rejected the defence argument that voice identification and phone evidence were unreliable, finding that visual identification and surrounding circumstances clearly established the accused’s role in arranging and conducting the transactions.

The court concluded that the accused trafficked cocaine and attempted to obstruct police during arrest.

However, the Crown failed to prove that additional cash found in the accused’s wallet constituted proceeds of crime.

The offender pleaded guilty to recklessly discharging a firearm, possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, and possessing an over-capacity magazine after firing shots in a residential complex.

He brought a Charter challenge arguing the five-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 244.2(3)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding the sentence was not grossly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence and the risk to the public.

The offender was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of five years, reduced to two years net after credit for pre-trial custody.

A young person pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of using an imitation firearm while committing robbery.

The offences were committed five days before the offender turned 18.

The court imposed a sentence of four months' secure custody followed by two months of supervision, and one year of probation with various conditions including a five-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The court considered the violent nature of the offences, the planning involved, the vulnerability of the victims, and the offender's lack of insight or rehabilitative progress.

A sixteen-year-old was charged with seven offences relating to the unlawful possession of a loaded firearm found in a vehicle.

The Crown alleged the accused possessed the firearm either directly, constructively, or jointly, and alternatively that he was an occupant in a vehicle knowing there was a firearm.

The court found that while the accused may have known of the firearm's existence, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had both knowledge and control of the weapon.

The firearm was not visible or accessible to the accused in the rear seat, and his presence in the vehicle and subsequent flight could be explained by circumstances other than knowledge of the gun.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused were arrested during a high-risk takedown following an undercover police operation targeting a ketamine drug transaction.

One accused was charged with trafficking and possession of marihuana, but the court found the Crown failed to prove his knowledge or involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals.

The other accused admitted to trafficking but brought a Charter application alleging police used excessive force during his arrest, including kicking him in the head while handcuffed.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that unknown officers subjected the accused to excessive and gratuitous force, breaching his s. 7 and s. 12 Charter rights.

Consequently, the charges against him were stayed pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.