Beverly A. Brown

Sentencing following guilty pleas to assault with a weapon against a very young child and failing to provide the necessities of life to three children left unattended overnight.

The court considered the offender's youth, guilty plea, traumatic upbringing, history as a victim of domestic violence, lack of record, and evidence of some rehabilitative efforts, but held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives because the offences involved abuse and neglect of very young children.

Applying the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code and the conditional sentence analysis from Proulx, the court concluded that a conditional sentence would not be proportionate or appropriate.

A global custodial sentence of 120 days less 39 days enhanced credit, for a net 81 days, was imposed together with three years probation, child-contact restrictions, a five-year weapons prohibition order, and waiver of the victim fine surcharge.

The offender was found guilty of impaired driving.

As a repeat offender, he faced a mandatory minimum penalty of 30 days incarceration.

The court considered the availability of intermittent sentences and the practice of correctional authorities issuing Temporary Absence Passes (TAPs).

The court imposed a sentence of 60 days incarceration to be served intermittently, a 2.5-year driving prohibition, and 18 months probation, with a strong recommendation that no TAP be granted.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple driving-related offences, including dangerous driving, flight from police, and driving while prohibited, spanning six Informations over two years.

The offender, who has a lengthy criminal record including a prior conviction for impaired driving causing death, repeatedly fled from police, damaged vehicles, and drove while subject to multiple driving prohibitions.

The court applied the totality principle to impose a global sentence of 17 years and 3 months (207 months) of incarceration, reduced by enhanced pre-sentence custody credit to a remaining sentence of 9 months and 7 days, along with a lifetime driving prohibition.

Sentencing on a guilty plea to careless driving causing death contrary to s. 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant drove a van at high speed toward a boat launch ramp in a parking lot adjacent to Ashbridges Bay, mistaking it for an exit road.

The vehicle entered the icy waters of Lake Ontario and sank, resulting in the death of the front-seat passenger who was trapped by an interior security cage.

The original charge of dangerous driving causing death under the Criminal Code was withdrawn after the Crown determined insufficient evidence of a marked departure from the standard of care.

A joint submission was accepted pursuant to R. v. Anthony-Cook.

Sentence comprised time served of four months actual custody with enhanced credit of six months less a day, twelve months probation with counselling conditions, a five-year driving suspension, and a victim fine surcharge.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arising from the discovery of a loaded handgun, large quantities of cocaine and other drugs, ammunition, cash, and trafficking paraphernalia in a vehicle.

The court treated the offender as a mid-level trafficker and held that the drug, firearm, and prohibition-breach sentences should be consecutive, subject to the totality principle.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, while giving some weight to remorse, rehabilitation, family support, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions.

Enhanced credit was granted for presentence custody, including lockdowns and triple bunking, resulting in a total sentence of approximately seven years and just under ten months, together with lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA, forfeiture, and counselling recommendation.

The court sentenced the accused after trial for assault arising from a public confrontation in which the victim was putting up posters of Israeli child hostages.

The sentencing judge found the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate against the victim as a member of the Jewish community and as a person publicly expressing support for Jewish hostages, making denunciation and general deterrence primary sentencing objectives.

While the accused was a first offender and judicial restraint remained relevant, the court held that a discharge or suspended sentence would be contrary to the public interest and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and its significant victim and community impact.

A 150-day conditional sentence with GPS monitoring, house arrest and curfew terms, followed by 12 months' probation, was imposed together with a five-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Sentencing for possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl, with methamphetamine and cash seized on arrest, by a first offender who pleaded guilty on the trial date and asserted drug dependency.

The court held that although there was some evidence of moderate fentanyl dependency and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, the quantity and nature of the Schedule I drugs, the trafficking indicia, and the offender's release status on other drug-related charges made denunciation and deterrence paramount.

Applying the conditional sentence framework, the court found no exceptional circumstances and rejected a community sentence.

After granting Summers credit and accounting for harsh jail conditions through the Marshall approach, the court imposed a 32-month custodial sentence less 455 days' enhanced credit, resulting in 519 days remaining to serve.

This sentencing decision addresses the possession of a stolen vehicle valued over $5,000 by Kamran Mughal, who pled guilty to one count amidst a broader investigation into vehicle trafficking.

The court carefully considered the joint submission for a conditional sentence of six months, balancing the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s lack of prior record, and his recent severe gunshot injuries.

The court declined to consider additional aggravating facts read into the record due to the defence’s successful application to exclude them.

The decision highlights the application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance on joint submissions and sentencing principles, including proportionality, judicial restraint, and individualized sentencing.

The sentence imposed includes house arrest, curfew, GPS monitoring, and probation with conditions addressing substance abuse and avoidance of the offence location.

The accused was tried on impaired operation and over 80 charges arising from being found unresponsive in a running vehicle at an intersection and later investigated at hospital.

The court found multiple connected Charter breaches, including a breath demand made without reasonable and probable grounds, arbitrary detention, failure to advise the accused of the reasons for detention and right to remain silent, and delayed and inadequate implementation of the right to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath test results under s. 24(2) because the police conduct was serious and had a substantial impact on Charter-protected interests.

On the impaired operation count, the court held the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the plausible and reasonable possibility that a medical condition, rather than alcohol impairment, explained the accused’s symptoms.

Acquittals were entered on both charges.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Omar Ashraf Elkhodary guilty of assaulting Vicky Moscoe by pushing her during a confrontation over posters depicting child hostages.

The court carefully analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, rejecting Elkhodary's claim of self-defence.

The court applied the modern self-defence framework under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing the accused's purpose and reasonable belief of threat.

It concluded Elkhodary's actions were motivated by a desire to remove the posters rather than to defend himself, and that no reasonable grounds existed to believe force was being used or threatened by the complainant.

The accused, Miller Hiscock, was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse without a condom or to ejaculation inside her.

The court found that the complainant consented to the sexual acts and that there was no prior discussion or condition regarding condom use or the location of ejaculation.

The court found the accused's testimony credible and noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The court concluded that the sexual acts were consensual and the accidental ejaculation inside the complainant did not retroactively remove consent, leading to an acquittal.

The Ontario Court of Justice declined to accept a joint sentencing submission of a six-month conditional sentence for an offender who pleaded guilty to possession of stolen motor vehicles over $5,000.

The court expressed serious concerns that the proposed sentence was too lenient given the prevalence of vehicle theft in the Greater Toronto Area and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court ordered the Crown to obtain victim impact statements, provide detailed information on the value and recovery of all vehicles involved, and produce police statistics on automobile theft prevalence, investigations, and resources in Toronto and the GTA, pursuant to s. 723 of the Criminal Code and the procedure outlined in R. v. Anthony Cook.

The Crown sought a recognizance under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code against Steven Noel Wice, alleging fear on reasonable grounds that he would commit a serious personal injury offence.

The court reviewed Wice's extensive criminal history, including a prior dangerous offender designation, psychiatric assessments diagnosing antisocial personality disorder and high risk of violent recidivism, and his consistent failure to engage in anger management treatment.

Despite some positive conduct, the court found the Crown's fear objectively reasonable due to Wice's past behaviour and lack of progress in addressing his anger issues.

The court imposed an 8-month recognizance with specific conditions, including reporting, weapons prohibition, substance abstinence (except cannabis), disclosure of intimate relationships, and mandatory anger management treatment.

Ashley Gallie, a pharmacy technician, was sentenced for multiple criminal and drug charges, including theft over $5,000 and possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, arising from stealing large quantities of oxycodone from two pharmacies where she was employed.

The court found her guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking for the first pharmacy (Nova) but not for the second (IDA), accepting her addiction but rejecting her claim of sole personal use for all stolen drugs.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust and the large quantity of drugs, and mitigating factors including her lack of prior record, addiction, and family circumstances.

A penitentiary sentence of four years and six months was imposed for possession for the purpose of trafficking, with concurrent sentences for other charges.

Sentencing for possession of child pornography and accessing child pornography following findings of guilt after trial.

The court rejected a defence request for a conditional sentence, holding that the curated nature of the collection, the offender’s continued searching and copying of material, the presence of real child victims, the lack of remorse, and the absence of treatment insight made denunciation and deterrence paramount.

Applying recent appellate guidance on child pornography sentencing and conditional sentences, the court concluded that a community sentence would not be proportionate.

A sentence of 10 months’ incarceration was imposed, followed by 3 years’ probation and ancillary DNA, SOIRA, s. 161, and forfeiture orders.

The defendant, Kadah Dematas, was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against two police officers.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his serious criminal record and the nature of the offences against law enforcement, and mitigating factors, such as his youth, efforts at rehabilitation, and Indigenous and racialized background (Morris and Gladue principles).

The court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 30 months, with significant pre-sentence custody credit, and ancillary orders including a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused, Airgama Abaya, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in his impaired driving trial.

The total delay from the information being sworn (July 7, 2022) to the completion of evidence and submissions (March 27, 2024) was 20 months and 20 days.

After deducting 32 days of defence-conceded delay, the net delay was 19 months and 18 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice set by R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court found no discrete events or case complexity to qualify as exceptional circumstances, and declined to consider general COVID-19 ripple effects or judge/staff shortages without specific evidence and argument.

Consequently, the court found a breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter and imposed a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1).

The accused were charged with firearms offences after police entered a condominium unit under exigent circumstances to check on the welfare of a young female.

After the female was safely removed, police arbitrarily detained the accused for an extended period without advising them of the reasons for detention or their rights to counsel.

During a search incident to the arrest of one of the accused, police seized a satchel containing a firearm that was outside his physical control.

The court found multiple egregious breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm evidence under section 24(2), finding that the cumulative police misconduct would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Ontario Securities Commission prosecuted the defendant, a director of a startup company developing a blockchain token backed by a mining asset, for securities fraud, making misleading statements to the OSC, unregistered trading, and illegal distribution of securities.

The court found that while misrepresentations were made in some corporate materials regarding the company's interest in a mine, the investors did not rely on those materials, negating the deprivation element of fraud.

The court also found the defendant's statements to the OSC were factually correct, he was not in the business of trading securities, and the distributions he authorized fell within the private issuer exemption.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

Mario Mendonca was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg.

The defence filed a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidence.

The court conducted a blended voir dire and dismissed all Charter arguments, finding no breaches.

The evidence, including blood alcohol readings, was admitted.

Mendonca was found guilty on both charges.