Derek Ishak

The accused, Adib Ibrahim, was found guilty of manslaughter after intentionally driving his taxi into a skateboarder, Ralph Bissonnette, causing his death.

This decision addresses the sentencing.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary term, DNA order, weapons prohibition, and driving prohibition.

The defence requested a conditional sentence, citing the accused's lack of criminal record, family support, health issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, finding a high degree of moral blameworthiness due to the intentional aggressive act.

The accused was sentenced to 3 years and 11 months incarceration, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

A further driving prohibition was declined given existing bail conditions and the term of incarceration.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with manslaughter following a fatal collision with a longboarder.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally veered into the victim in a fit of road rage, while the accused claimed he was unaware of the victim's presence and the collision resulted from a momentary lapse of attention or a mechanical 'bump steer'.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding that he intentionally steered his taxi into the curb lane knowing the victim was beside him.

The court concluded this conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person, finding the accused guilty of manslaughter based on the unlawful acts of assault and dangerous driving.

At the close of the Crown's case in a first degree murder trial, the accused brought applications for a directed verdict.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, cell phone records, and motive, to establish that the accused planned and carried out the shooting.

Applying the test from Arcuri, the court found that the Crown's evidence, if believed, could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

The applications for a directed verdict were dismissed.

The offender was convicted of possessing a sawed-off shotgun with readily accessible ammunition and uttering threats to kill a former friend.

At the time of the offences, she was subject to a 10-year firearms prohibition and kept the weapon in an apartment shared with her two children.

The court distinguished the sentencing range for sawed-off shotguns from semi-automatic handguns but emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 36 months for the firearm offence and a consecutive 60 days for threatening, resulting in a net sentence of 33 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

During a jury trial for firearms offences, the Crown sought to call reply evidence to undermine the credibility of a defence witness who testified about two unidentified men looking for the complainant.

The Crown also sought to re-open cross-examination of the witness.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed reply evidence related solely to the witness's credibility and therefore offended the collateral fact rule.

The court also declined to permit further cross-examination, noting the Crown had already been given a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

During a jury trial for firearms offences, the defence called evidence suggesting third parties were responsible for the crime without bringing a pre-trial application to determine its admissibility.

The Crown applied for a mistrial, arguing the evidence was inadmissible and its late introduction caused irremediable prejudice.

The court ruled that while an application should have been brought, the failure to do so was an honest mistake.

The court found the evidence regarding two unidentified males was logically relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect, making it admissible.

However, evidence suggesting the complainant possessed the firearm was excluded as speculative.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding the Crown was not irremediably prejudiced, but allowed the Crown to reconsider calling reply evidence.

The accused, a 52-year-old operations manager at a brokerage firm earning approximately $70,000 annually, systematically stole approximately $175,000 from her employer over approximately 18 months by diverting deposit funds to her personal bank account.

The theft was motivated by financial and personal difficulties arising from matrimonial issues, leaving her solely responsible for supporting her two adult children pursuing post-secondary education.

The accused was of otherwise good character with a single prior conviction for impaired driving from 15 years prior.

She pleaded guilty and confessed to her criminal activity.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 15 months and full restitution.

The accused sought a conditional sentence order to be served in the community.

The court rejected the conditional sentence option, finding that the seriousness of the breach of trust, the amount stolen, the sophistication of the scheme, and the lack of restitution necessitated a custodial sentence to satisfy the principles of denunciation and general deterrence.

During a trial for second degree murder arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, the accused requested a jury instruction on consciousness of innocence based on his post-offence conduct, including calling 911, asking about the victim's condition, and suggesting police check his vehicle for forensic evidence.

The trial judge declined to give the instruction, finding that the accused's actions were equally consistent with guilt or innocence and therefore lacked probative value to support an inference of a consciousness of innocence.

The accused was arrested for dangerous driving after striking and killing a skateboarder with his taxi.

The charge was later upgraded to second degree murder.

The Crown applied to admit the accused's video-recorded statement to police, while the accused applied to exclude it, alleging it was involuntary due to an atmosphere of oppression and that his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was breached.

The court found the statement was voluntary, as the police treated the accused courteously and no oppressive conditions existed.

Although the court found an implementational breach of s. 10(b) due to a 1 hour and 50 minute delay in facilitating contact with duty counsel, the police made a "fresh start" by allowing the accused to consult duty counsel twice before taking the statement.

The police also made diligent efforts to contact the accused's counsel of choice before resorting to duty counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application and ruled the statement admissible.

The offender, a taxi driver, was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after striking and killing a skateboarder with his vehicle.

The sentencing judge found as a fact that the offender intentionally struck the victim in a fit of road rage, using his vehicle as a weapon, though without the intent to kill.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 47.5 months' imprisonment (4 years less pre-trial custody credit), along with a 6-year driving prohibition and a weapons prohibition.

A preliminary inquiry into the first-degree murder of Rala Fredrick, who was shot execution-style on George Street in Toronto on July 6, 2014.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on eyewitness testimony from individuals at a men's shelter who were under the influence of drugs and alcohol, combined with CCTV surveillance footage.

No direct evidence linked either defendant to the shooting, no gun was recovered, and no witness identified the shooter.

The judge found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit both defendants to trial, though expressed serious reservations about the weakness of the case, particularly regarding eyewitness reliability and inconsistencies in their descriptions.

The accused, an 18-year-old first-time adult offender, was convicted of aggravated assault, armed robbery, and firearms offences following a drug robbery where a firearm accidentally discharged, injuring the victim.

The Crown sought a sentence of 8 to 10 years, arguing the 5-year mandatory minimum for robbery with a restricted firearm applied.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the firearm was restricted or prohibited, applying the 4-year minimum instead.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 5 years, 1 month, and 19 days, reduced to 2 years less a day after enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 3 years of probation.

The 18-year-old accused was convicted of aggravated assault, armed robbery, and firearm offences following a drug robbery where a firearm accidentally discharged, injuring the victim.

The court determined that the Crown failed to prove the firearm was a restricted or prohibited weapon, meaning the four-year mandatory minimum applied rather than the five-year minimum.

Considering the accused's youth, minor record, and the jump principle, the court imposed a total sentence of 5 years, 1 month, and 19 days, which, after enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, resulted in a remaining sentence of 2 years less a day, followed by 3 years of probation.

The offender was sentenced after being convicted of fraud over $5,000, using a forged document, and three counts of failing to comply with recognizance conditions.

The offences arose from a 56‑day stay at a hotel during which the offender amassed over $22,000 in charges and attempted payment with a forged cheque while breaching release conditions prohibiting computer use and requiring residence at a specified address.

The offender had an extensive criminal record for similar fraud‑related offences and repeated breaches of court orders.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public, finding numerous aggravating factors including the prolonged and planned nature of the fraud and the offender’s persistent recidivism.

Consecutive sentences were imposed totaling four years’ imprisonment consecutive to an existing sentence, along with restitution to the victim hotel.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000, using a forged document, and three counts of failing to comply with a recognizance after staying 56 days in a luxury hotel without paying and tendering a counterfeit cheque exceeding $20,000.

Police conducted a warrantless search of the accused’s hotel room and seized computers and documents, leading to a Charter s. 8 challenge.

The court held the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room and that the search violated s. 8.

However, applying the framework in Grant, the court admitted the evidence because the police acted in good faith, the breach was not serious, and the evidence was reliable and central to the Crown’s case.

Based on circumstantial evidence, including forged corporate documents and counterfeit cheque materials found in the room, the court concluded the accused orchestrated a fraudulent scheme and knowingly used a forged cheque.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a planned drug robbery during which the complainant was shot in the neck.

The court found that the accused and a co‑participant jointly planned the robbery, with the co‑participant initially brandishing a firearm while the accused acted as backup.

During an ensuing struggle, the accused struck the complainant with the gun, dragged him from his vehicle, and continued assaulting him, during which the firearm discharged and caused serious injuries.

The court held that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the principal offender in the aggravated assault and a joint principal in the armed robbery, though the discharge of the firearm was likely accidental.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, and pointing a firearm, but convicted of aggravated assault, armed robbery, and several firearm possession offences.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 and knowingly using a forged document after depositing a series of cheques into his criminal defence lawyer’s trust account to pay a $34,000 retainer for a preliminary hearing.

Evidence showed the first cheque was forged and the remaining cheques were not backed by funds, yet the accused confirmed the deposits and represented them as genuine while the lawyer performed extensive legal work.

Surveillance footage linked the accused to the deposit of the forged cheque, and surrounding circumstances supported the inference that he knew the cheques were fraudulent and intended to delay detection until after the preliminary hearing commenced.

Applying the principles from Théroux and Zlatic on fraud and Valois on forged documents, the court found both the actus reus and mens rea of the offences proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The lawyer suffered financial deprivation after performing over 100 hours of work without payment and faced a potential bank investigation into his trust account.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 for failing to disclose material financial information to the Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP) between April 1998 and July 2007, resulting in overpayment of $107,442.24.

The Crown alleged the accused deliberately concealed ownership of two properties, multiple vehicles, business accounts, and business operations.

The accused claimed the properties and assets belonged to a friend and that she derived no income from the businesses, asserting she had no obligation to disclose.

The court found the accused guilty, determining she had the requisite mens rea and actus reus for fraud, rejecting her credibility and finding her non-disclosure was deliberate and put the agency at risk of deprivation.