Ben Elzinga Cheng

The accused was convicted after trial of aggravated assault and failing to comply with probation.

He stabbed the victim four times in the back on February 9, 2024, at a makeshift shelter near Jane and Finch in Toronto.

The court found a causal link between the accused's schizophrenia and the offence, despite the Crown's submission that the accused's calm demeanor on video surveillance negated any such connection.

The court imposed a three-year sentence, accounting for the accused's mental illness, strong family support, good character when stable, difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, and rehabilitation prospects, while also recognizing the serious and unprovoked nature of the attack and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The defendant, Abdulkadir Mohamud, was found guilty of trafficking fentanyl, possessing Percocet for trafficking, and possession of property obtained by crime.

Following an unsuccessful entrapment application, the matter proceeded to sentencing.

The Crown sought a reformatory term of two years less a day, resulting in nine months of actual custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court granted a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community under strict conditions.

The decision emphasized rehabilitation, the social context of anti-Black racism, and the defendant's positive Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report, concluding that a conditional sentence would not endanger community safety and was consistent with sentencing principles, despite the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking.

The defendant was found guilty of drug trafficking and related offences based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

He subsequently brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing he was entrapped by police who offered him an opportunity to traffic fentanyl without reasonable suspicion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the police had reasonable suspicion based on a compelling and credible tip from a confidential informant, which was further corroborated by the defendant's responses to undercover text messages.

The appellant, who is HIV positive, was convicted of three counts of attempted murder, three counts of aggravated sexual assault, and two counts of administering a noxious thing (HIV).

The trial judge imposed a global sentence of 14 years, with a net sentence of 9 years and 3 months after credit for presentence custody, plus a five-year long-term supervision order.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the three attempted murder convictions due to misdirection on the mens rea requirement, finding the trial judge failed to adequately explain that the Crown must prove either that the appellant's purpose was to kill or that he believed death was a virtually certain consequence of his actions.

The convictions for aggravated sexual assault were upheld.

The Court ordered a new trial on the attempted murder charges and set aside the stay on the charge of attempting to administer a noxious thing to one complainant, ordering a new trial on that count as well.

The sentence appeal was adjourned pending further submissions.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

She was found asleep in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition.

After failing a roadside screening device test, she was arrested and provided with duty counsel.

However, when asked by the breath technician if she was satisfied with the legal advice received, she indicated she was not satisfied and did not understand the advice.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) of the Charter because the accused was not informed of her right to a second consultation with counsel.

The breath readings and statements were excluded under section 24(2), resulting in a not guilty verdict.