Dihim Emami

This is a sentencing decision for Chandramattie Dave and Ravindra Dave, who pleaded guilty to trading in securities while prohibited by an Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) order, contrary to s. 122(1)(c) of the Securities Act.

Both defendants were subject to market bans.

The OSC sought a fine and probation, while the defendants sought a suspended sentence and probation.

The court considered the defendants' impecunious state, poor health, diminished moral blameworthiness due to reliance on incorrect legal advice, lack of investor loss, and guilty pleas.

Applying regulatory sentencing principles, the court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation for each defendant, including the forfeiture of $2,250 to the OSC, but declined to impose a fine due to the defendants' inability to pay.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit two accused to stand trial for second degree murder in the death of Trey Theriault, who sustained eight stab wounds during an altercation.

The accused admitted presence and participation in a physical fight but argued insufficient evidence of intent to kill.

The court applied the Sheppard/Arcuri test for committal, examining whether a reasonable jury could infer guilt from the evidence.

The court found sufficient evidence on all essential elements of second degree murder: causation (stab wounds to vital organs), unlawful act (armed assault without justification), and intent (inferred from the nature and number of wounds).

Both accused were committed to stand trial.

A pharmacist who owned and operated a pharmacy pleaded guilty to breach of trust contrary to the Criminal Code.

He admitted to submitting billings to the Ontario Drug Benefits Program for medications without proof of dispensation, receiving benefits knowing the claims could not be substantiated.

The audit revealed discrepancies in drug quantities billed versus purchased, with unsubstantiated claims totalling $155,466, though actual loss recovered was $46,506.04.

The defendant faced suspension of billing privileges and termination of his subscription agreement.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and specific conditions, considering the defendant's exemplary personal antecedents, community contributions, full restitution, genuine remorse, and the aberrant nature of the conduct.

During a criminal trial for multiple convenience store robberies, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict after the close of the Crown’s case regarding two of the alleged robberies.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to surveillance footage and clothing similar to items worn by a robber.

The court applied the directed verdict test from R. v. Monteleone and the circumstantial evidence principles from R. v. Arcuri.

The judge held that the similarities in clothing and general appearance were too generic and common to support a reasonable inference that the accused was the perpetrator.

Directed verdicts of not guilty were entered on the two counts.

The accused brought an application to stay the proceeding pursuant to Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for an alleged breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time under Section 11(b) of the Charter.

The charge was laid on October 26, 2010, and the trial date was set for March 28, 2012, representing a delay of approximately 17 months.

The court analyzed the delay using the framework established in R. v. Morin, considering the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice.

The court found that the operative delay was 8 months (6 months institutional delay plus 2 months Crown delay), which fell within the acceptable guideline of 8-10 months.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon following an altercation with the complainant on the campus of the University of Toronto.

The Crown alleged that during a physical struggle, the accused used a baton-like instrument to assault and injure the complainant.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed self-defence.

The trial judge found the accused guilty, determining that the accused was the aggressor both in class and during the subsequent physical altercation, and that when challenged during the fight, the accused resorted to the use of a blunt instrument and excessive force.

The court rejected the accused's self-defence claim as disproportionate and not available under the Criminal Code.