Domenic Basile

The appellant was convicted of fraud in excess of $5,000 following an 11-day judge-alone trial and sentenced to three years imprisonment.

The fraud involved the negotiation of a stolen and forged TD Canada Trust bank draft in the amount of $1,895,751, which was deposited into a lawyer's trust account and used to purchase gold bars.

The appellant's role was to coordinate with an unidentified person inside the TD branch who facilitated the fraud.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The appellant was convicted after a three-day trial of nine domestic violence offences against his wife, including two counts of assault, three counts of assault with a weapon, two counts of uttering death threats, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement.

The charges were based on five alleged incidents occurring between September 2010 and August 2012.

The appellant was sentenced to 35 months in prison.

On appeal, the sole ground raised was ineffective assistance of counsel at trial resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged deficiencies in counsel's representation did not result in an unfair trial or an unreliable verdict.

This decision addresses the voluntariness and admissibility of statements made by two accused, Youssef El Hariti and Abdelmalek Haddouche, charged with sexual assault and gang sexual assault.

The court found Abdelmalek Haddouche's statement involuntary due to police persistence undermining his right to silence, despite his repeated assertions of not wanting to speak on counsel's advice.

For Youssef El Hariti, the court found his statements were obtained in breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel, as police failed to ensure he received legal advice in a language he fully understood, despite being aware of his limited English proficiency.

Both statements were ruled inadmissible under the confessions rule and s. 24(2) of the Charter, respectively.

V.J. was convicted of eight offences, including assault, assault with a weapon, uttering death threats, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement, against his wife, A.J., over a two-year period.

The court considered aggravating factors such as domestic violence in the home, escalation of violence, and the victim's vulnerability, alongside mitigating factors like the offender's lack of criminal record and strong work ethic.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, and following the approach of assigning fit sentences for each offence before considering totality, the court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 35 months, along with a mandatory weapons prohibition, DNA order, Sex Offender Registry order, and a no-contact order.

Sentencing decision involving two offenders who pleaded guilty to charging a criminal interest rate and extortion arising from a long‑running loan‑sharking operation.

The offenders charged borrowers an effective annual interest rate of approximately 520% and used threats and violence to collect payments.

The court considered denunciation and deterrence under s. 718 of the Criminal Code but found that conditional sentences remained legally available due to the timing of the offences.

Despite significant aggravating factors, including exploitation of vulnerable borrowers and organized criminal activity, the court imposed conditional sentences given the offenders’ guilty pleas, lack of prior criminal records, restitution, and other mitigating circumstances.

Conditional sentence orders, restitution, forfeiture, fines, probation, and ancillary orders were imposed.