Cidalia C. G. Faria

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle under s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code after a police pursuit involving multiple red-light violations, roadway departures, and collisions with police vehicles.

The sentencing issue was whether denunciation and deterrence required a conditional sentence, or whether a conditional discharge remained fit in light of individualized circumstances.

The court weighed significant aggravating features of the driving against mitigating factors including early guilty plea, remorse, absence of record, rehabilitation efforts, and social-context evidence including anti-Black racism impacts.

The court also considered collateral consequences relating to employability and immigration inadmissibility risk, applying parity and proportionality principles.

A conditional discharge with probation and a driving prohibition was imposed.

The court sentenced an accused who pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 committed through a workplace breach of trust involving 21 fraudulent cheques totaling $50,308.98.

Applying proportionality, parity, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court treated repeated transactions, prior similar record, and business harm as aggravating, while crediting an early guilty plea, remorse, family support, employment, and sustained addiction recovery efforts.

The court found some unfairness in the charging timeline but held that post-plea fraudulent conduct still required a meaningful sanction.

A six-month conditional sentence was imposed to balance denunciation and deterrence with demonstrated rehabilitation.

Following trial convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm arising from a road-rage confrontation, the court determined sentence.

The court held denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing principles but found a jail sentence was not required on these facts.

Weighing aggravating factors including leaving the scene and a false firearm report against significant mitigating factors, including first-offender status and strong rehabilitative history, the court concluded a conditional sentence remained proportionate.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles and authorities on parity and conditional sentence denunciatory effect, the court imposed a substantial community-based sanction with house arrest conditions.

The offender received an 18-month conditional sentence, followed by 2 years’ probation, a 2-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

Sentencing of a 52-year-old repeat offender who pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner while on probation prohibiting contact with her, and to uttering death threats against a fellow inmate while in pre-trial custody.

The prolonged and degrading attack involved dragging the victim by her hair and stomping on her head, causing injuries requiring stitches and leaving permanent scarring.

The court weighed extensive aggravating factors including intimate partner violence, breach of multiple probation orders, a 125-conviction criminal record spanning 36 years, and the severity of the assault against mitigating factors of guilty pleas, rehabilitative programming in custody, and harsh conditions of incarceration at the Toronto South Detention Centre including frequent lockdowns and triple-bunking.

A young person (DP), age 15 at the time of the alleged offence, was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code for allegedly penetrating the complainant (ML) anally while she slept during a birthday sleepover.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, two witnesses present at the sleepover, and the accused.

The court found the accused not guilty, concluding that while the complainant appeared credible and genuinely believed the assault occurred, her evidence regarding the critical two-minute window of the alleged offence raised reliability concerns given her extreme intoxication and initial uncertainty.

The accused's evidence, though also raising reliability concerns due to his intoxication and drug use, was sufficiently plausible to create reasonable doubt.

The Crown failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with one count of assault and two counts of sexual assault.

The assault charge related to an incident on February 28, 2023, where the complainant alleged the accused made a threatening gesture toward her during an argument.

The two sexual assault charges related to alleged incidents in December 2006 and May-June 2013.

The trial proceeded by indictment before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding her reliance on "recovered memories" obtained through therapy sessions.

The court acquitted the accused on all three counts, finding that the Crown had not proven the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was convicted of assaulting his intimate partner following a domestic dispute.

The assault occurred in the family home after the defendant took the victim's vehicle keys and purse, leaving their children in the van.

The defendant chased the victim around the kitchen island, swung at her with a closed fist, attempted to kick her, and then lunged and grabbed her.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation, finding that while the defendant had no criminal record and demonstrated remorse through counselling, the serious nature of intimate partner violence, the context of coercive control, and the presence of children required a conviction to reflect denunciation and deterrence principles.

The Crown applied for an order permitting the complainant to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) pursuant to section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code in a trial involving charges of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats.

The accused opposed the application.

The complainant initially testified in person without accommodation but renewed her request after the first day of trial, stating that the accused's presence impeded her ability to provide full and candid testimony.

The court granted the application, finding that the nature of the allegations, the intimate partner relationship between the parties, the complainant's expressed fear and sense of intimidation, and the barrier this created to truthful testimony all favoured the granting of the order.

The accused pled guilty to fraud over $5,000, uttering a forged document, and committing theft under false pretenses in connection with an elaborate Ponzi scheme operated through Mac Glamour Inc. between 2015 and 2019.

The accused targeted members of her Filipino community, promising high investment returns on a fictitious lipstick manufacturing business.

A Gardiner hearing was held over 30 months to determine the quantum of loss and whether a fine in lieu of forfeiture should be ordered.

The court accepted a joint submission of 4 years imprisonment and ordered a fine in lieu of $610,856.00 based on losses that were readily ascertainable from documentation provided by certain victims.

The court rejected the Crown's submission that losses totaling nearly $5 million were proven, finding that many victim claims lacked sufficient documentation to meet the "readily ascertainable" threshold.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Suhail Alsendi to 12 months' imprisonment for trafficking cocaine, following his guilty plea to trafficking on October 12, 2023.

The court considered multiple trafficking incidents, the quantity and nature of the drug, possession of a replica firearm, and lack of insight as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included his first-time offender status, guilty plea, and family support.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles given the offender's high blameworthiness and the gravity of the offence.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, forfeiture of seized items, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Gregory Dale Walton, a declared Dangerous Offender (DO) serving a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO), pled guilty to breaching his LTSO by consuming illicit drugs.

The court considered the appropriate sentence length, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation principles, particularly in light of Mr. Walton's substance addiction and prior breaches.

The judge enhanced pre-sentence custody credit to reflect harsh lockdown conditions and lack of access to rehabilitative programs, ultimately imposing an 18-month sentence with credit for time served.

Wayne Afemui was charged with assault with a weapon and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm under ss. 267(a) and 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony and video surveillance to prove that Afemui intentionally struck the complainant, Sheldon Arnold, with his vehicle in a circular driveway after a verbal altercation.

Afemui testified in his own defense claiming the contact was accidental and that he was trying to escape a perceived threat.

The court found Afemui's evidence not credible or reliable, accepted the Crown's evidence, and concluded that Afemui's driving was a marked departure from the standard of care and that he intentionally hit Arnold with his car.

Afemui was found guilty on both charges.

Kayil Torres pled guilty to possessing and accessing child exploitation material on multiple occasions in 2022.

The court considered extensive forensic evidence, expert psychological assessments diagnosing Torres with pedophilia, and his personal circumstances including youth, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The Crown sought a 2-year penitentiary sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the Defence argued for a conditional sentence based on mitigating factors.

The court found the aggravating factors, including the volume and nature of the material and the offender’s high blameworthiness, outweighed mitigating factors.

It imposed an 18-month concurrent jail sentence on both counts, a 2-year probation order, and ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order and a s. 161 order restricting contact with children.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Marcial Katimaba Manigbas for sexual assault, considering aggravating factors such as the abuse of a professional relationship and the offence occurring in the victim's home.

Despite the seriousness, the court recognized mitigating factors including Manigbas' age, lack of prior criminal record, positive family and community ties, and collateral consequences suffered.

The court imposed a 5-month conditional sentence to be served in the community, a 12-month probation order with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, a DNA order, and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

The court declined to impose a SOIRA order, finding it disproportionate given the circumstances.

This decision concerns the conviction of Tiena Lewin, an Early Childhood Educator student, for assaulting a 17-month-old child by pulling the chair the child was sitting on with sufficient force to cause injury.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of witnesses, particularly contrasting the testimony of a daycare assistant and the accused.

The judge applied the W.(D.) framework for assessing the accused’s testimony and found the Crown proved all elements of assault beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the accused’s version of events as not raising reasonable doubt.

The decision also addresses the application of the de minimis principle in criminal law, concluding the force used was neither trivial nor harmless.

This decision involves the conviction of Joseph Herrington for assaulting his intimate partner, Janice Wu, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the complainant, a neighbour, and the accused himself.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the judge found the complainant’s evidence credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies, supported by the neighbour’s independent testimony.

The accused’s evidence was found implausible and inconsistent.

The court rejected the defence’s de minimis argument, emphasizing the seriousness of intimate partner violence.

The accused was found guilty based on the totality of the evidence proving the assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision addresses an application under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for a witness to testify behind a screen in an assault case involving intimate partner violence.

The court considered the statutory factors and relevant case law, including the lowered threshold for granting such orders.

The complainant expressed emotional distress and discomfort at testifying in the presence of the accused, which the court found sufficient to grant the application.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of facilitating truthful testimony without compromising the accused’s right to a fair trial.

This decision addresses the credibility and reliability assessments in a sexual assault trial involving three counts against Jun-Feng Zhang.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence, including witness testimony and digital communications, applying the W.(D.) framework for reasonable doubt.

Despite inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the judge found the accused's testimony detailed and credible, ultimately acquitting Zhang on all counts due to reasonable doubt.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sanction for Dylan Larios-Bonilla, a registered massage therapist found guilty of sexual assault involving a patient.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust as a healthcare provider and the victim's vulnerability, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of prior record, positive rehabilitative prospects, and community support.

The court analyzed relevant case law and principles, particularly the availability and appropriateness of a conditional sentence under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code.

Ultimately, a 15-month strict conditional sentence, a 2-year probation order, a DNA order, and a 10-year SOIRA order were imposed, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.