Cydney Gaye Israel

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.

This criminal trial concerned the charge of reckless discharge of a firearm against the accused, who had already pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

The incident occurred in a busy mall where the accused returned fire after another individual (Shooter 1) discharged a handgun in his direction.

The central issue was whether the accused's actions constituted lawful self-defence under Section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the accused reasonably believed force was being used against him and acted with the purpose of self-defence, his response was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The judge emphasized that the accused had other options, such as seeking cover, and that his act of firing into a crowded mall recklessly escalated the risk to numerous innocent bystanders, which does not align with community norms.

Consequently, the Crown successfully disproved self-defence, and the accused was found guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm.

This is a sentencing decision for Gioacchino Jack Ricchio, who was convicted of sexual assault.

The 16-year-old victim was intoxicated and drugged with flubromazolam, rendering her incapable of consent.

The assault involved intimate touching and possibly digital penetration.

Aggravating factors included the victim's vulnerability, the accused's knowledge of her incapacitation, his prior youth criminal record (including a violent offence), and his callous abandonment of the victim while she was incapacitated.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth (20 years old), intellectual deficits, and family support.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, finding the assault highly intrusive and harmful despite the absence of proven penile penetration, citing R. v. Friesen.

Considering the principle of parity with a co-accused who received 26 months, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, followed by two years of probation, along with various ancillary orders.

Ayub Ali was found guilty of manslaughter as a party to the first-degree murder of Kadir Abdulkhadir.

The co-accused, Mohamud Dirie, was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The court was tasked with sentencing Mr. Ali, who was 19 at the time of the offence and a youthful first offender.

The jury's verdict implied Mr. Ali knew Mr. Dirie was armed and intended to recklessly discharge a firearm, and Mr. Ali aided in tracking the victim and positioning Mr. Dirie for the ambush.

The Crown sought 12-13 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court considered the aggravated nature of the manslaughter, the use of a firearm (triggering a 4-year minimum), and the principles of denunciation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation for a youthful first offender.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 years imprisonment, reduced to an effective term of 3 years and 11 months after enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused were jointly tried for offences arising from a robbery at a mall cell phone store during which the victim was shot.

The central issue was whether the victim produced a firearm and accidentally shot himself during a struggle, as claimed by the accused, or whether one of the accused produced and discharged the weapon.

The court rejected the accused’s testimony as implausible and inconsistent with surveillance evidence and witness testimony, finding that one accused possessed and fired the handgun to facilitate the robbery while the other knowingly participated.

The principal offender was convicted of robbery while armed, aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent, and firearm possession offences.

The co‑accused was convicted of robbery while armed and firearm possession offences but acquitted of the aggravated assault and firearm discharge counts due to reasonable doubt about foreseeability.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault with a knife, two counts of wounding, and breach of probation arising from an altercation in which two individuals were slashed and required medical treatment.

The Crown relied primarily on the testimony of one complainant after the other refused to identify the assailant.

The court assessed credibility under the framework in R. v. W. (D.) and related authorities.

Although the accused’s testimony was found not credible, the complainant admitted to significant prior lies, memory issues, drug use before the incident, and inconsistencies between prior statements and trial testimony.

In light of these reliability concerns and other circumstantial evidence, the court held that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime following an undercover police drug purchase.

An undercover officer testified that she purchased cocaine from a man matching the accused’s description using pre-recorded marked money, and surveillance officers identified the accused as the person involved in the transaction.

The defence called multiple civilian witnesses who stated the accused did not engage in a drug transaction and remained with them on the way to purchase pizza.

The court found that although the accused matched the description of the person observed by police, the marked $20 bill allegedly recovered from him was neither photographed nor preserved as evidence.

In the absence of this best evidence and given the competing testimony, the court concluded the Crown had not proven identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.