Fariborz Davoudi

The court considered whether Daniel Pestill should be declared a high-risk accused following a finding of not criminally responsible for the death of Michael Ryan, and also determined the appropriate sentence for various drug and firearm offences.

The court reviewed expert psychiatric evidence, statutory criteria, and relevant case law, ultimately designating Pestill as a high-risk accused and imposing a six-year sentence for the drug and gun offences, to be served in a hospital.

The decision includes detailed analysis of the factors for high-risk designation and the principles of sentencing for serious drug and firearm offences.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Rasim Kaba and Hassan Talebi for importing and possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to commit those offences.

The court reviews the evidence, including the defendants' backgrounds, their relationship, the importation process, intercepted communications, and the police investigation.

The court finds both defendants' explanations implausible and concludes that the only reasonable inference is that both knew of the opium and conspired to import and traffic it.

Both are found guilty on all counts.

This decision provides reasons for the sentencing of three individuals convicted in the murder of Theepa Seevaratnam and attempted murder of Leelavathi Seevaratnam.

Steadley Kerr and Vijendran Balasubramaniam were convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Gary Samuel was convicted of manslaughter.

The court applied sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, considering aggravating factors such as firearm involvement, planning, the domestic nature of the murder, and the vulnerability of the victims.

Mitigating factors, such as lack of criminal record and rehabilitative potential for some offenders, and harsh presentence custody conditions, were also considered.

Sentences included life imprisonment for murder and concurrent terms for conspiracy and attempted murder, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, Devonie Williams-Senior, was charged with break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily the accused's fingerprints found on a "trinket box" in the ransacked dwelling.

The defence argued that the fingerprints did not conclusively prove the accused's presence at the time of the offence, suggesting an innocent explanation such as handling the item prior to its purchase.

The court applied the two-stage approach for fingerprint evidence, finding the defence's alternative inference speculative and irrational.

The court concluded that the totality of the circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with firearm and drug offences after police executed a search warrant at his residence targeting another individual.

The accused brought pre-trial Charter applications alleging violations of his rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The Crown sought to prove the voluntariness of the accused's statements and relied on the Garofoli step 6 procedure to uphold the search warrant based on confidential informant information.

The court found the search warrant was constitutionally valid and dismissed the section 9 claim.

However, the court found section 10(b) violations because police compelled the accused to open a safe without re-advising him of his right to counsel, and delayed implementing his right to counsel at the police station.

Despite these breaches, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding the breaches were not serious and had minimal impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests.

The accused's statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender, who was convicted of two counts of counselling murder and one count of obstruction of justice.

The offender brought a Charter challenge arguing the dangerous offender regime violated his rights under ss. 7 and 12, which the court dismissed.

The court found the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to an intractable pattern of severe domestic violence and a high risk of violent recidivism.

Concluding that neither a conventional sentence nor a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

Three young persons were convicted of assault causing bodily harm following a five-day trial.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of six months (four months secure custody, two months supervision, followed by 12 months probation), along with firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The defence counsel argued for probation-based sentences.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of four months followed by two months community supervision and 15 months probation for each offender.

The court found the offence involved a pre-planned, brutal swarming attack on a father who attempted to prevent a fight, resulting in serious injuries including permanent scarring and ongoing physical and psychological harm to the victim and his family.

Restitution was awarded to one victim for damaged clothing in the amount of $220.00 (divided equally among the three offenders at $75.00 each).

The accused was sentenced following a guilty plea to charges involving violence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation, having credited four months of pre-sentence custody on each count concurrent.

A lifetime weapons prohibition under section 109 of the Criminal Code was imposed.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel and imposed conditions including a no-contact order with the victim, a one-time reporting requirement to probation, and a 100-metre radius restriction.

Other charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

The appellant, Bilal Moucho, appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, and speeding.

The appeal focused on the admissibility of fresh evidence, specifically cell phone records, to challenge the identity of the driver.

The court applied the Palmer criteria for fresh evidence, finding a lack of due diligence by the appellant but concluding that the evidence was relevant, reasonably credible, and could have affected the verdict, particularly given the inherent dangers of eyewitness identification.

The convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

Three young persons were charged with assault causing bodily harm in respect of the victim MG.

L.D. was additionally charged with assaulting MG with a weapon, assaulting ZG, and assaulting XG with a weapon.

The Crown alleged that the three defendants participated in a swarming attack on MG that resulted in serious injuries including lacerations requiring staples and stitches, and significant bruising.

The defendants argued self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code and disputed their involvement.

The court found that the three defendants were guilty of assault causing bodily harm as equal participants in a common enterprise, but acquitted them on the weapon and other assault charges due to insufficient identification evidence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence of one year under section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court determined that a fit and proportionate sentence was 17 months imprisonment, which exceeded the mandatory minimum.

Consequently, the constitutional challenge was rendered moot.

The defendant was sentenced to 17 months imprisonment, 24 months probation, a 15-year section 161 prohibition order, a 20-year SOIRA order, a DNA order, and forfeiture of all seized materials.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging that sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were breached by the conduct of the arresting officers, such that all statements and breath samples should be excluded.

The defence ultimately conceded the 10(a) issue and proceeded only on the 10(b) claim, arguing that the officers failed to account for the accused's language difficulties when explaining his right to counsel.

The court found that the officers took appropriate steps to ensure the accused understood his rights, including arranging for a Farsi-speaking officer to translate, and that the accused was afforded a meaningful exercise of his right to counsel.

The Charter application was dismissed and the breath samples were admitted as evidence.

A conviction was entered.

The applicant, Javoni Palma, facing a charge of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought three applications at the outset of his trial, alleging violations of his section 7 and section 9 Charter rights.

The applications sought exclusion of evidence or a stay of proceedings, based on claims of arbitrary detention, excessive force during arrest, and lost video evidence from seized iPhones.

The court dismissed all three applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds for investigative detention, did not use excessive force, and that the alleged lost evidence was either irrelevant or not proven to have been tampered with by police.

Dirk Inniss pleaded guilty to importing 19 kg of cocaine.

The sentencing hearing addressed his role in the drug hierarchy compared to a co-conspirator, Denise Edwards, and the impact of harsh pre-sentence detention conditions.

The court found Inniss's role comparable to Edwards's, but without the additional schemes she was involved in.

Despite Edwards receiving a 10-year sentence based on an early plea and joint submission, the court imposed a 10-year sentence on Inniss before credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

This sentence was then reduced by one year due to particularly harsh pre-sentence detention conditions, including extensive lockdowns and denial of fresh air, resulting in a total sentence of 9 years.

After credit for pre-sentence custody, 53 months and 7 days remained to be served.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit three accused for trial on charges arising from the death of Dionecio Nelson on July 2, 2015.

Nathaniel Findley and Andrew Mitchell were charged with second degree murder in Nelson's death; Mitchell also faced two assault with a weapon charges.

Rayanne Mehdi was charged with accessory after the fact.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence establishing that Findley and Mitchell were the occupants of a vehicle that stopped after nearly hitting Nelson, leading to a violent altercation in which Nelson was fatally stabbed multiple times.

The preliminary inquiry judge found reasonable inferences available to a jury that Findley and Mitchell acted as co-perpetrators in a joint enterprise to assault Nelson, knowing that death was a probable consequence.

Findley was committed to stand trial on second degree murder; Mitchell and Mehdi conceded committal on their respective charges.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to admit autopsy, hospital, and clothing photographs of the deceased.

The defence objected, arguing the photographs were excessive, unnecessary, and unduly prejudicial.

The court applied the test of relevance and probative value versus prejudicial effect, finding the photographs highly probative for the jury to understand the nature of the injuries and the defendant's statements, and not unduly prejudicial.

The court ruled to admit all vetted photographs, emphasizing their necessity to assist the pathologist's testimony and provide context beyond diagrams.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts relating to child sexual exploitation: attempt to live on the avails of a person under 18, exercise control, procuring, and child luring.

The accused, along with two co-accused, lured three young girls aged 14 and 15 into prostitution at the Scarborough Town Centre.

The Crown sought 5 years imprisonment less pre-trial custody credit, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years, finding this to be the minimum necessary to meet sentencing principles.

The court credited 1,157 days of pre-trial custody at the 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in 303 days remaining to be served, followed by 2 years probation and a 10-year s.161 order.

The accused was charged with trafficking heroin and claimed he was acting as a police agent under the direction and control of an unnamed detective, relying on the exemption in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulation.

The Crown brought a motion arguing there was no air of reality to this defence.

The court reviewed the accused's testimony and found that he had explicitly rejected the detective's instructions and acted on his own initiative when arranging the drug transaction.

The court concluded there was no evidential foundation that the accused was acting under the direction and control of a police officer, and ruled the defence would not be put to the jury.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual offences against a 13-year-old victim: two counts of sexual interference and one count of invitation to sexual touching.

The offences occurred in September 2014 when the accused was 33 years old.

The accused had exploited his position as a trusted family friend to initiate sexual contact with the victim, engaging in unprotected vaginal intercourse and oral sex on two separate occasions.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, while the defence argued for 2 years less a day.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment with credit for 345 days of pre-sentence custody at a rate of 1.5 days per day served, resulting in approximately 17 months credit.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, prohibition on communication with the victim, lifetime sex offender registry requirement, and a 10-year prohibition on employment or volunteering with persons under 16 years of age.

The offender was convicted of historical sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching against a child who was 9 to 12 years old at the time.

The abuse occurred over a two-year period while the offender lived with the victim's family.

The court found the offender was in a position of trust and the abuse was prolonged and frequent.

The court sentenced the offender to three and a half years' imprisonment, with six months' credit for strict bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of three years in the penitentiary, along with SOIRA, DNA, weapons prohibition, and s. 161 orders.