Cidalia C. G. Faria

Lonelle Timothy Price pleaded guilty to three counts of assault.

The court delivered reasons for sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the sexualized nature and persistence of the assaults, targeting of young women, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, family support, and diagnosis of schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, which diminished moral culpability.

The court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and the collateral consequences of deportation for the non-citizen offender.

A DNA order was also considered and granted.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced the defendant for assault causing bodily harm.

The defendant, who had no prior criminal record, assaulted the victim on a public transit bus, causing a fractured arm and significant emotional and financial hardship.

Despite admitting the assault during trial, the defendant's admission was not considered equivalent to a guilty plea for sentencing mitigation.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court, applying principles of denunciation and deterrence, found a conditional sentence too severe and a conditional discharge inappropriate given the gravity of the offence and the defendant's blameworthiness.

A suspended sentence with two years of probation, including anger management and community service, along with a DNA order and weapons prohibition, was imposed.

The defendant, Alan Smith, was charged with impaired driving, driving with over 80 mg of alcohol, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle following a single-vehicle collision.

The defence challenged identity, impairment, and dangerous operation.

The court found the Crown proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt, impairment based on observed indicia and the collision, and dangerous operation due to erratic, high-speed lane changes in precipitation leading to a severe collision.

Mr. Smith was found guilty of all three counts, with the impaired driving charge stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The defendant, C.A., was charged with criminal harassment for watching or besetting the residence of T.K., the mother of his son, causing her to reasonably fear for her safety.

A related charge for breaching a probation order was acquitted.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the child witness, J.A., finding his testimony consistent and logical despite minor inconsistencies.

Applying the definition of "besetting" from R. v. Dapena-Huerta, the court found that C.A.'s conduct of returning to T.K.'s residential area, seeking out their son, and making statements indicating knowledge of their residence and T.K.'s habits, constituted besetting.

Considering C.A.'s history of violence against T.K., the court concluded that the Crown proved criminal harassment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yaqub Jama was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.

He argued that the Crown failed to prove he was the driver and that his Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) were violated, seeking exclusion of evidence.

The court found the Crown proved identity and impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, and that no Charter rights were infringed.

The court dismissed the Charter application and found Mr. Jama guilty of both charges, staying the impaired driving charge under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, Jun-Feng Zhang, brought a motion to stay charges of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code, alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion was 23 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice set by *R. v. Jordan*.

The court analyzed the delay, attributing significant portions to defence inaction and miscommunication, ultimately calculating a net delay of 17.5 months, which falls below the *Jordan* ceiling.

Consequently, the application to stay the charges was dismissed.

The defendant, Hacar Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

This sentencing decision weighed aggravating factors, including significant physical injuries to the victim (broken nose, chipped tooth, facial bruising) and psychological impact, against numerous mitigating factors.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's lack of criminal record, youthfulness, acknowledgment of responsibility, strong community support, self-initiated counselling, and community service.

The Crown sought a 3-month jail sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional discharge or, alternatively, a conditional sentence of 3 to 6 months.

The court rejected a conditional discharge, deeming it inconsistent with the principles of denunciation and deterrence for the severity of the offence.

However, it found a conditional sentence appropriate given the defendant's rehabilitative efforts and low risk to the community.

A 4-month conditional sentence was imposed, along with an 18-month probation term and ancillary orders.

Jimmy Jainga pleaded guilty to uttering threats, use of an imitation firearm, and assault with a weapon, stemming from a domestic incident where he threatened his common-law partner and her daughters with a replica firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors including his prior manslaughter conviction, the domestic context of the offences, and the presence of children.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, a 10-year gap in his criminal record, and strong family support.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the gravity of the offences.

Jainga was sentenced to 36 months (3 years) for the imitation firearm charge, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Solomon Nnadede, who was found guilty of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The assaults occurred three times over nine months against a vulnerable 21-year-old homeless refugee claimant who was financially and spiritually dependent on the offender, a church pastor.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the breach of trust, the manipulative context, and the substantial impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, pro-social life, and efforts to support his family.

The court also addressed collateral immigration consequences, noting they cannot lead to a disproportionate sentence.

The Crown sought 8-9 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court sentenced the offender to 5 years in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition, DNA sample, Sex Offender Registry registration, and a no-contact order.

Following a trial where Eric Dalton was found guilty of assault, the court delivered its sentencing decision.

The assault was perpetrated against an intimate partner in the victim's home, a relationship characterized by fear.

Despite the Crown's recommendation for a conditional discharge, the court noted the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the offender's lack of remorse or insight into the victim's experience.

Considering the offender's challenging background, lack of criminal record, and positive personal goals, the court imposed a conditional discharge with a three-year probation period, including terms for counselling (Partner Abuse Response, Caring Dads, anger management), no contact with the victim, and community service.

The defendant, Kenton Lee-Diggs, was found guilty of cruelty to animals, impaired driving, and mischief.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the gratuitous violence against a defenceless animal and the victim's trauma, and mitigating factors including family support and employment prospects.

The court imposed a jail term, probation, and ancillary orders, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while also considering rehabilitation.

This judgment re-affirms a finding of guilt for assault causing bodily harm after the case was re-opened to hear new defence evidence.

The court had previously found the defendant guilty, and the defence sought to re-open the case after locating a new witness.

The new witness's testimony was found to be unreliable due to intoxication, marijuana use, and inconsistencies.

The court concluded that the defendant's response to the complainant's initial slap was an unreasonable and excessive use of force, not constituting self-defence, and re-affirmed the conviction.

Mohammad Isaq Jahfari was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault (the latter stayed).

This decision outlines the sentencing reasons.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the offender's control over the vulnerable victim, escalation of intimacy, and grooming behaviour, as well as mitigating factors such as strong family support and a history as a productive member of society.

The court accepted the Crown and Defence's recommendation for a 178-day jail term (6 months minus 2 days) to avoid significant immigration consequences.

However, the court declined the defence's request for an exception to the s. 161 order that would allow unsupervised contact with family members under 16, citing the offender's lack of insight and the continued risk posed.

The defendant, Hacar Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, brought an application to re-open his case after being found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

The application sought to introduce new eyewitness evidence from Kelly Farkas, who was present during the altercation but was not located prior to trial.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, considering admissibility, cogency, and due diligence.

Despite the proposed evidence being sparse, the court found it met the threshold for cogency and credibility, and that the defendant had demonstrated sufficient due diligence in attempting to locate the witness.

The application was granted, the finding of guilt was vacated, and the defence was permitted to call the new witness.

Eric James Dalton was charged with assault for allegedly pushing the mother of his child, Di Huang.

The Crown called the complainant and arresting officers, while Mr. Dalton represented himself and testified.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, particularly the complainant's initial reluctance to provide details and inconsistencies, which were accepted as logical reactions within the context of intimate partner violence.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, while rejecting the defendant's account as illogical and not credible.

Dalton was found guilty of assault.

The defendant, Ronald Brown, was charged with multiple weapon and assault offences after allegedly confronting his ex-partner's new boyfriend, Sean Roberts, with a baseball bat and displaying a handgun.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the Crown's witnesses (Ms. Beard and Mr. Roberts) and the defendant.

The court found Mr. Roberts' testimony regarding the baseball bat credible and reliable, but his evidence concerning the handgun was not sufficiently reliable.

The defendant's testimony was deemed inconsistent, disingenuous, and implausible.

Brown was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a weapon, and assault with a weapon (a silver baseball bat), but not guilty of charges related to the handgun.

The applicant, Martin Ngigi, brought an amended O'Connor application seeking extensive medical and school records of the complainant, J.G., a nine-year-old boy with muscular dystrophy, who alleged assault.

The application also involved a Mohan voir dire to admit expert evidence from Dr. Ken Berger regarding neuromuscular conditions and cognitive function to support the records request.

The court dismissed the Mohan voir dire, finding Dr. Berger's expert evidence was not relevant, necessary, or impartial.

Consequently, the court also dismissed the O'Connor application for further records, concluding that the requested information was not likely relevant to the issues at trial or necessary for the applicant's full answer and defence, and that the complainant's significant privacy interests outweighed any potential probative value.

The accused, Mohammad Isaq Jahfari, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The complainant testified that the accused offered him a ride, then touched his thigh, kissed his head, forehead, cheek, and lips, and attempted to "groom" him.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and fabricated.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, rejecting the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent.

The court concluded that the touching was intentional, for a sexual purpose, and occurred in sexual circumstances, and that the accused's actions constituted grooming.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The accused, Yuan-Hung Lo, was charged with Fraud Over $5000 and three counts of Possession of Property Over $5000.

The Crown alleged that Mr. Lo knowingly participated in a fraud scheme where the complainant was defrauded of $181,000, or was wilfully blind to it.

The defence argued that Mr. Lo believed he was involved in a legitimate business deal and was unaware of the fraud.

The court found that while Mr. Lo's business practices were odd and naive, his testimony and efforts to document transactions raised a reasonable doubt as to his knowledge or wilful blindness.

Consequently, the court found Mr. Lo not guilty of all charges.

The defendant, Kenton Lee-Diggs, was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device, mischief under $5000, and cruelty to animals.

Following a dismissed Charter voir dire, the defendant conceded the impaired driving and mischief charges.

The court found the defendant guilty of cruelty to animals based on the complainant's credible and detailed testimony.

However, the defendant was found not guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample because the specific demand for an Approved Screening Device (ASD) as charged was never made by any officer; rather, demands were made for an approved instrument.