Ayeman Kenawy

This decision concerns a complex auto theft and revinning scheme involving ServiceOntario employees and a body shop operator.

The court found that Eric Johnson and Tonisha Baird conspired to traffic stolen vehicles and conceal their true ownership by using fraudulent or cloned VINs.

The evidence was largely circumstantial, including wiretaps, documents, and items seized during police searches.

Baird was found guilty of conspiracy, possession of property obtained by crime, and breach of trust.

Johnson was found guilty of conspiracy, trafficking, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence, the conduct of the accused, and the legal standards for each offence, ultimately finding that the only reasonable inference was guilt.

The offender, M.A., was found guilty after a three-day trial of assaulting his then-wife, involving striking her, covering her mouth, and holding her neck, causing difficulty breathing.

The prosecution sought six months imprisonment, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors (intimate partner violence, presence of child, complainant's recent surgery, significant emotional harm) and mitigating factors (first offender, 43 years old, sole caregiver for four children, employed, volunteer work, cognitive behavioural therapy, favourable pre-sentence report, low risk to re-offend).

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months probation, along with a DNA order and a five-year weapons prohibition, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's rehabilitative efforts and good character.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his wife.

He admitted to a non-consensual application of force by putting his hand on her mouth to calm her down, which he conceded might have caused bleeding.

The complainant testified that the defendant slapped her, held her on the bed, sat on her, beat her face and head, and grabbed her neck, causing difficulty breathing and possible loss of consciousness.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant, considering inconsistencies and admissions.

The court rejected the defendant's explanation for scratches found on his body, concluding that these injuries were inflicted by the complainant in self-defense while she was being choked.

The defendant was found guilty of assault.

The offender pleaded guilty to sharing intimate images under section 162.1 of the Criminal Code.

The offender, in a state of depression following the breakdown of his relationship, uploaded five videos and seventeen nude photographs of his former partner to various websites without her consent, attaching her name, age, ethnicity, and place of birth to the images.

The victim discovered the images online and suffered severe psychological harm, depression, and ongoing harassment from strangers.

The court rejected the offender's request for a conditional discharge and imposed a custodial sentence of five months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount sentencing principles for this offence.

Two accused pleaded guilty to importing cathinone (the active ingredient in khat) contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown initially sought imprisonment but later revised its position to seek fines.

Both accused sought absolute discharges.

The court established that absent significant aggravating factors, custodial sentences are rarely appropriate for khat importation given the substance's limited harmfulness.

Both accused received absolute discharges, with mandatory firearm prohibition orders imposed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The complainant, a 17-year-old, was heavily intoxicated at a party when the accused returned to her residence and engaged in sexual activity with her while she was incapacitated.

The court rejected the accused's defence that the complainant consented, finding that she was too intoxicated to consent and that the accused was aware of her incapacity.

The court also found that the accused unlawfully entered the dwelling with intent to commit the sexual assault.

The accused was convicted on both charges.