Cidalia C. G. Faria

This decision addresses charges against Muhammed Batchilly for assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon contrary to a release order under the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Batchilly assaulted a person with a weapon, it did prove he possessed a knife in breach of his release conditions.

The judgment carefully analyzes witness credibility, reliability, and the essential elements of assault with a weapon, including the requirement that the victim reasonably apprehend the accused's present ability to effect their purpose.

The court also considers the defence of self-defence but finds it unnecessary to rule on it due to insufficient evidence on a key element of assault.

Saieed Hagi pled guilty to possession of a loaded firearm in breach of a firearm prohibition order while on parole for a manslaughter conviction involving a firearm.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the Defence argued for 4 years with credit for harsh pre-sentence incarceration conditions and social context mitigating factors.

The court balanced aggravating factors including possession of two firearms while intoxicated and on parole, against mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, significant lockdown conditions, social disadvantage, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

The sentence imposed was a global 4 years minus pre-sentence custody, with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearm prohibition and DNA sample.

Abdul Malik Kamara was convicted of possessing a loaded Glock 27 firearm with a defaced serial number while subject to two firearms prohibitions under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

This was his third conviction for possession of a loaded firearm.

The court considered extensive social context evidence, including an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment highlighting systemic anti-Black racism and trauma in Mr. Kamara’s life, as well as harsh incarceration conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The Crown sought a 9-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence recommended 6 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years, reflecting denunciation and deterrence, with credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh jail conditions, and apportioned the sentence across multiple counts including possession while prohibited and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number.

This decision addresses the constitutionality and application of ss. 42(5)(a) and 42(2)(p) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which restrict Deferred Custody and Supervision Orders (DCSO) for young persons convicted of indecent acts causing bodily harm.

The court found these provisions violate sections 15 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and declared them invalid.

The sentencing reflects the offender’s diminished moral blameworthiness as a young person at the time of the offence, despite his current age and serious health issues.

The court imposed a 2-year less a day DCSO, exceeding the statutory 6-month limit, to ensure proportionality and community denunciation.

This decision addresses the constitutionality of ss. 42(2)(p) and 42(5)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), which restrict the availability and duration of Deferred Custody Supervision Orders (DCSO) for young persons convicted of offences causing or attempting serious bodily harm.

The court found these provisions violate sections 15 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying young persons access to a fit and appropriate sentence comparable to adults' Conditional Sentence Orders (CSO).

The court followed the precedent set in R. v. T.M., striking down the impugned provisions and removing the six-month limitation on DCSOs.

Jameel Vanderhyden-Steaman pled guilty to possession of an unloaded prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing was delayed due to the unavailability of an Impact of Race and Culture Report, resulting in an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report addressing racial factors.

The court considered aggravating factors including possession in a vehicle on a public road and being wanted on an outstanding warrant, alongside numerous mitigating factors such as youth, lack of criminal record, employment, family support, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The judge found that a penitentiary sentence was not required and imposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day, with enhanced credit for time served under strict house arrest conditions, along with ancillary orders including DNA sample, weapons prohibition, victim fine surcharge, and forfeiture of seized items.

Nick Chrysostomou pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm after attacking a man with a hatchet during a road rage incident in Toronto.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the deliberate use of a weapon, the serious injury caused, and the public nature of the offence.

Mitigating factors included Chrysostomou’s lack of prior record, guilty plea, and rehabilitative potential.

The Court rejected a conditional discharge as contrary to public interest but imposed a 6-month Conditional Sentence Order with strict conditions, followed by 18 months probation, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation.

This endorsement clarifies a witness caution issued to the Crown's main witness, LSB, during an ongoing criminal trial for assault and sexual assault.

The caution restricted LSB from discussing her evidence with anyone except her criminal lawyer and therapist.

A motion for direction was brought by the accused's counsel, prompted by a Superior Court Justice's endorsement, seeking clarification regarding LSB's ability to discuss underlying events with her family law counsel for a separate, upcoming family law trial involving similar allegations.

The court declined to further modify the caution to specifically address family law proceedings, reiterating that LSB should seek independent legal advice for family law matters, and clarified the caution to explicitly prohibit LSB from discussing her criminal trial evidence with her family law counsel.

The accused, a building superintendent, was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the accused, as well as consideration of Charter arguments.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony, finding it unshaken despite minor inconsistencies regarding timing.

The court applied the W.D. test to the accused's denial, finding his evidence unconvincing and dismissive of the complainant's autonomy.

Ultimately, the court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, concluding that the Crown had proven the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, Jun-Feng Zhang, brought a second application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of his s.11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The court applied the Jordan framework, specifically analyzing a 164-day delay that arose during the trial when the complainant required independent legal advice regarding privacy rights in redacted text messages.

The court found this delay to be a discrete exceptional circumstance, as it was unforeseen and the Crown made reasonable efforts to remedy it.

Consequently, the total net delay remained below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice, and the application was dismissed.

Joshua Sabourin pleaded guilty to 10 offences, including robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and break and enter.

The parties jointly recommended a 5-year penitentiary sentence, minus pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The court considered the facts, the offender's background (including substance abuse and potential intellectual disability), and legal principles of sentencing (denunciation, deterrence, totality, proportionality, parity).

Despite mitigating factors like the guilty plea, numerous aggravating factors, including a long criminal record, random selection of vulnerable victims, and lack of insight, warranted a significant sentence.

The court acceded to the joint recommendation, imposing concurrent sentences totaling 5 years, and ordered various ancillary measures including DNA submission, a lifetime weapon prohibition, and SOIRA registration.

The accused, C.N., was sentenced for three counts of sexual interference and one count of invitation to sexual touching involving his half-sister, DT, who was between 8 and 10 years old at the time of the offences.

He also pled guilty to failing to comply with a release order.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's young age, abuse of trust and authority, degree of physical interference, duration and frequency of offences, location (victim's home), persistence, and grooming.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, a difficult childhood, and efforts to address mental health and substance use post-offences.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, guided by R. v. Friesen, and imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 7.5 years.

The accused, Deren Kenneth Akyeam-Pong, was found guilty on multiple charges following a trial, including possession of a stolen motor vehicle, possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and various firearm-related offences, along with breaches of probation and release orders.

The court determined guilt based on circumstantial evidence, applying principles of constructive and joint possession, and found the defence's alternative inferences to be unreasonable speculation.

This ruling addresses three interpretation issues that arose at the outset of a sexual assault trial.

The court determined whether a Japanese interpreter should be provided for the complainant witness and assessed the qualifications of two proposed Japanese language interpreters.

The court ruled that the complainant required an interpreter, that one proposed interpreter (Kwang Hyuon Joo) was not qualified, and that the other proposed interpreter (Ayae Komri) was qualified to provide interpretation.

The decision emphasizes the court's truth-seeking function and provides a detailed analysis of interpreter competence criteria.

The accused, Estime Ndayihezagiye, was found guilty of possession of a loaded, restricted semi-automatic firearm and careless storage.

In this sentencing decision, the court considered aggravating factors such as the prevalence of gun violence in Toronto, the presence of a laser sight, and the risk to younger siblings due to careless storage.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth (18 at the time of arrest), lack of criminal record, extensive family and community support, demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation, and a severe mental health crisis experienced during pre-sentence incarceration due to harsh conditions and inadequate medical response.

The court also considered the impact of anti-Black racism on the accused's life and the significant delay in obtaining an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The judge quantified "Duncan credit" for harsh incarceration conditions and "Downes credit" for stringent bail conditions.

The court ultimately imposed a reformatory sentence, finding that a penitentiary term was not required given the unique circumstances, and allowed the sentence to be served in the community as a conditional sentence.

The defendant, a registered massage therapist, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant alleged that during a massage session for lower back pain, the defendant engaged in non-consensual touching of her buttocks, exposed himself, and ejaculated on her leg.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies, and rejected the defendant's inconsistent and implausible explanations for his actions and the state of his clothing.

The court concluded that the defendant's conduct, including unzipping his pants and placing his hand on his penis while massaging the complainant's buttocks, demonstrated a sexual purpose.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused was found in possession of a loaded, defaced firearm while subject to two weapons prohibition orders.

He challenged the lawfulness of his arrest, alleging lack of reasonable grounds, racial profiling, lost evidence, and violations of his rights to be informed of the reason for arrest and to counsel.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding the police had reasonable grounds, no racial profiling occurred, the lost evidence did not prejudice the defence, and his right to counsel was not violated.

Consequently, the accused was found guilty on all four counts.

Oladele Olafimihan pleaded guilty to sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The court delivered a sentence of 4 years in penitentiary, minus pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders for DNA sample, lifetime weapons prohibition, and 20-year SOIRA registration.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as stalking, threats, and victim vulnerability, and mitigating factors including the offender's lack of criminal record, strong family support, self-help initiatives, and a significant guilty plea.

The court accepted the joint submission from the Crown and Defence, finding it proportionate and not bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, while also acknowledging the serious collateral consequences of deportation.

The accused, Kenny Raposo, pleaded guilty to 17 criminal offences, including 10 counts of break and enter, breaches of release conditions, possession of break-in tools, obstructing justice, mischief, and theft, committed over five months, primarily motivated by a crack cocaine addiction.

The offences targeted small businesses and community hubs, causing financial loss and property damage.

The Crown and Defence presented a joint submission for an 18-month conditional sentence (adjusted to 16 months due to additional pre-sentence custody), a 3-year probation order, restitution, and a DNA order.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it consistent with sentencing principles and not contrary to the public interest, balancing the aggravating factors of a lengthy criminal record and crime spree with significant mitigating factors, including a guilty plea, remorse, substantial rehabilitative efforts in custody, and strong family support.

The defendant, Mayuran Sritharan, was charged with assaulting his younger brother with a butcher knife and uttering threats to cut his throat.

The complainant testified that during an argument, the defendant retrieved a butcher knife, held it above his head, pointed it at him, and threatened him in Tamil.

The complainant felt concerned for his safety and called the police.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness.

Applying the legal principles for assault with a weapon and uttering threats, the court determined that the defendant's actions and words, coupled with the complainant's genuine fear, met the actus reus and mens rea for both charges.