Benjamin ElzingaCheng

The Law Society Tribunal found that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct, including money laundering, advance fee fraud, and misleading clients and the Law Society.

Following a finding of misconduct, a penalty hearing was held.

The Tribunal denied the lawyer's last-minute request for an adjournment.

Applying the Bolton principle, the Tribunal concluded that the lawyer's egregious dishonesty compelled the immediate revocation of his licence.

The lawyer was also ordered to pay $60,000 in costs to the Law Society and to reimburse the Compensation Fund for any related claims paid.

The decision addresses a defence Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained during a search incident to arrest.

The court found that the arrest of Mr. Ibrahim under a valid and subsisting warrant was lawful, and the subsequent search of his person and satchel did not violate his rights under section 8 of the Charter.

While there was a brief breach of Mr. Ibrahim’s section 10(b) right to counsel, the court held that the breach was minor and did not warrant exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The application was dismissed.

This decision addresses the issue of identity in a stabbing incident where the accused, Dwumo Amankwaah, was charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown withdrew the attempted murder charge but sought conviction for aggravated assault as a lesser included offence.

The court carefully analyzed the reliability and credibility of the victim's identification, corroborated by surveillance footage and DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation, staying the assault with a weapon charge under the Kienapple principle.

The judgment also clarifies the requirements for lesser included offences in attempted murder charges, particularly regarding aggravated assault.

In a criminal trial arising from a stabbing prosecution, the court determined the voluntariness of a videotaped police interview after the accused was arrested using force by officers who later participated in the questioning.

The defence argued that the arrest circumstances, the involvement of the same officers, and repeated assertions of a desire not to speak undermined voluntariness.

Applying the confessions rule and the contextual framework from Singh, the court held that the force used in the arrest was justified, non-gratuitous, and sufficiently disconnected from the interview.

The court found the accused understood his rights, was not oppressed or coerced, and repeatedly chose to engage with police despite intermittent refusals, rendering the statements admissible.

The appellant, Carlos Zamora, appealed his sentence for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a release order, seeking a conditional discharge instead of the conditional sentence of 90 days and 21 months probation imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was based on two grounds: that the sentencing judge placed undue emphasis on deterrence and failed to properly consider a conditional discharge, and that the judge misapprehended evidence regarding aggravating factors.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the sentencing judge's decision, affirming that the possibility of a conditional discharge was considered and that the aggravating factors were appropriately assessed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The applicant, an Indigenous male charged with first-degree murder, sought to challenge potential jurors for cause based on race and pre-trial publicity.

The Crown consented to the challenge based on race but opposed the challenge based on pre-trial publicity.

The court dismissed the application regarding pre-trial publicity, finding the media reporting was minimal and fair, and did not create a realistic potential for partiality.

The court also rejected the applicant's request to use multiple-choice answers for the race-based challenge questions, opting instead for standard yes/no questions to protect juror privacy and avoid vague responses.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion to be allowed to sit at counsel table during his trial instead of in the prisoner's dock.

He argued that sitting in the dock undermines the presumption of innocence and fair trial rights, citing the Guy Paul Morin inquiry report and potential prejudice as an Indigenous person.

The Crown argued for the customary placement in the dock for visibility and jury observation, suggesting a jury instruction could mitigate prejudice.

The court, balancing fair trial rights, communication needs, and the absence of security concerns, granted the application, allowing the accused to sit at counsel table.

The accused, Bernard LaCombe, was found guilty of one count of sexual assault involving four non-consensual sexual acts with an intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intimate partner relationship and breach of trust, and mitigating factors such as the accused's health issues and the out-of-character nature of the offences.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three and a half to four and a half years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court sentenced the accused to three years in a penitentiary, along with a five-year firearms prohibition and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

This is a sentencing decision for an offender found guilty of Dangerous Driving Causing Death and Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm.

The incident involved the offender unsafely passing vehicles at high speed on a curved road with double solid lines, resulting in a head-on collision that killed one person and caused severe, permanent injuries to two others.

The offender, a 27-year-old first-time offender with no prior criminal or traffic record, expressed deep remorse and suffered significant injuries himself.

The Crown sought 3-4 years immediate incarceration and a 5-year driving prohibition, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence under two years and a 2-year prohibition, highlighting the absence of typical aggravating factors (alcohol, prior bad driving, etc.).

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day for dangerous driving causing death (concurrent with 16 months for bodily harm), to be served under house arrest with electronic monitoring, and a 4.5-year driving prohibition.

The judge concluded that a penitentiary sentence was not necessary, and a conditional sentence with strict conditions adequately addressed accountability, denunciation, and deterrence given the specific mitigating factors.

The appellant, a permanent resident of Canada for 30 years, sought to set aside guilty pleas to firearms offences on the basis that he was uninformed of the significant immigration consequences.

The Crown conceded the appeal, acknowledging that the appellant's assertion of being unaware was credible, given the absence of a plea inquiry at trial and trial counsel's lack of specific recollection or uniform practice regarding advising on immigration consequences.

The appellant also demonstrated prejudice from potential removal from Canada due to his long-standing residency and family ties.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the guilty pleas and convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision upholding his conviction for uttering a threat.

The moving party had attempted to enter the wrong apartment while confused and suffering from a broken jaw, and told the complainant 'I'm going to kill you' in broken English.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding no issues of general importance and no merit to the arguments, as the trial judge's factual findings regarding the threat and mens rea were entitled to deference.

On consent of both parties, the Superior Court of Justice allowed a summary conviction sentence appeal, imposing a sentence of 179 days.

The accused's convictions for attempted murder were quashed on appeal, leading to a reassessment of his sentence for aggravated sexual assault and administering a noxious substance.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reduced the total sentence from 111 months to 81 months.

The court affirmed that while the mens rea for attempted murder is higher, the accused's conduct, involving deliberate infection of young men with HIV, demonstrated a high level of moral blameworthiness, justifying a substantial sentence despite the quashed convictions.

The court also addressed the application of the Kienapple principle to enter convictions on previously stayed charges.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated sexual assault arising from his failure to disclose his HIV-positive status before engaging in unprotected anal intercourse with two complainants.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury to acquit if they found the complainants were reckless or prepared to assume the risks of unprotected sex.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a complainant's past risky sexual behaviour does not negate an accused's legal duty to disclose a significant risk of serious bodily harm.

The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge's failure to give a Vetrovec warning, his jury instructions on the evidence, or his failure to give a limiting instruction regarding the appellant's text messages.