Frank Schembri

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 sentencing decision concerns two co-accused, Tafari Bezabeh and Justin Harker, convicted by a jury of attempt murder and first degree murder arising from two closely connected shootings in Toronto on June 19, 2022.

The court reviews the facts, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the applicable case law, ultimately imposing life imprisonment for both offences, with no parole eligibility for 25 years on the murder count and a concurrent life sentence for attempt murder.

The decision emphasizes the need for denunciation and deterrence in the context of planned, public gun violence.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of extrinsic discreditable conduct, including cell phone images of the accused in possession of handguns and ammunition seized from a townhouse, in a murder and attempted murder trial.

The court applied the `Handy` test, admitting the cell phone images and ammunition due to their high probative value regarding identity, party liability, and planning, which outweighed their prejudicial effect.

However, the court excluded the admission of two specific handguns seized from the townhouse, as they were not the murder weapons and their probative value was minimal compared to the already admitted evidence and potential for prejudice.

The accused, Tafari Bezabeh, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 8 of the Charter of Rights, challenging the facial sufficiency of two search warrants for a London, Ontario residence and a car.

The warrants were executed nearly three weeks after two Toronto shootings for which the accused was charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The applicant argued that the warrants lacked reasonable grounds, contending that the residence was merely transitory and that the evidence would be stale due to the elapsed time.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that reasonable inferences supported the belief that relevant evidence would still be present at the rental residence, and that the standard for issuing a search warrant (reasonable and probable grounds) does not require the exclusion of alternative exculpatory inferences or proof on a balance of probabilities.

Nathaniel McLaughlin was charged with aggravated assault on a 13-month-old child, Khalaiya Ross.

The judge-alone trial heard evidence from police, EMS, Ms. Ross (the child's mother), and five medical specialists.

The medical evidence overwhelmingly indicated severe, non-accidental trauma inconsistent with the accused's account of an accidental fall.

The court found the accused's statements inconsistent and his alternative theories speculative.

The judge concluded that the injuries occurred while the child was in the accused's sole care, and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in a fatal shooting outside a bar.

After a dispute, the offender handed a mask to an unidentified shooter who then shot the victim.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years and 3 months, arguing for mitigation due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including extensive lockdowns and lack of medical care.

The court found the appropriate sentence was 8 years, but reduced it by 6 months to 7.5 years to reflect the exceptionally harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault.

At trial, the judge rejected the appellant's testimony, stating he was an 'old fox' who had tailored his evidence to the case he knew he had to meet.

The Superior Court of Justice found this to be an error of law, as discounting an accused's credibility on the basis of tailored evidence creates a constitutional trap that subverts the right to be present at trial.

Because the trial judge provided no explanation for this conclusion, the appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

Cole Kieley sought a bail review of two detention orders related to firearms charges in Newmarket and Toronto, including attempt murder.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and court adjournments.

The court found Kieley met the onus on the secondary ground but failed on the tertiary ground, citing the seriousness of the alleged offences (a public gun battle), the fact they were committed while on prior bail for a similar offence, and the potential loss of public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and Kieley remained detained.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and "over 80" under the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the accused was intoxicated and in the driver's seat of a vehicle in a parking lot.

The defence challenged the arrest on Charter grounds and argued the presumption of care or control was rebutted by the accused's testimony that he had decided not to drive home.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, rejected the Charter challenges, and convicted the accused on both counts, finding that the presumption was not rebutted and that actual care or control was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eran Shomonov was sentenced after being convicted of unauthorized possession of semi-automatic handguns, careless use of a firearm, and simple possession of marijuana.

The court considered mitigating factors, including his lack of prior record, strong community support, and genuine remorse, alongside the aggravating factor of serious firearms offences.

The court found that the firearms were possessed for protection, which, while not a mitigating factor per se, influenced the placement of his conduct on the spectrum of criminal behaviour.

A reformatory sentence of 21 months, reduced by two months for pre-trial custody and bail restrictions, was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, Andrew Medford, was found guilty on all five counts of a criminal indictment following a trial without a jury.

The charges included sexual assault with a weapon (knife), choking with intent to commit an indictable offence, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, assault, and possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence.

The court accepted the complainant's testimony, finding that an initial consensual sexual encounter became non-consensual when the complainant attempted to withdraw consent.

DNA evidence linked the accused to the scene, and an eyewitness corroborated parts of the physical altercation.

The court addressed inconsistencies in witness testimony and the complainant's credibility, including her history of drug use and prior dishonesty, ultimately finding her evidence reliable regarding the essential elements of the offences.

The accused, charged with kidnapping for ransom and related offences, applied for a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The reviewing judge found that the original bail judge erred in disqualifying the accused's mother as a surety simply because she believed in his innocence.

With a bolstered release plan including a larger financial pledge, an additional surety, and electronic monitoring, the court concluded the secondary and tertiary concerns were adequately addressed.

The application was granted and the accused was released on strict conditions.

The accused was charged with second degree murder after fatally stabbing his father.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that the accused was not criminally responsible due to mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

Psychiatric evidence established that the accused suffered from a psychotic disorder with hallucinations and persecutory delusions causing him to believe his father was possessed by the devil and turning into a serpent.

The court accepted the expert opinion that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong at the time of the offence.

The presumption of criminal responsibility was rebutted on a balance of probabilities.

Following a judge‑alone trial, the accused was convicted of robbery and wearing a disguise with intent arising from a planned robbery of a retail telecommunications store in Toronto.

The offenders stole more than 100 cellular phones valued at approximately $50,000 and fled in a rented getaway vehicle before being arrested shortly thereafter.

The court considered the accused’s extensive criminal record, limited employment history, and poor prospects for rehabilitation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives.

The court also addressed the parity principle in relation to co‑accused who had pleaded guilty and received lesser sentences.

A global custodial sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment was imposed after credit for pre‑trial custody, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

The accused was tried for robbery, wearing a disguise with intent, and possession of property obtained by crime following the robbery of a Bell store by two masked men.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance video, clothing comparisons, footprint impressions, and the accused's flight from police.

During the trial, the court permitted the Crown to reopen its case to admit clothing exhibits due to an oversight.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's presence with the other perpetrators before and after the robbery, the purchase of the bag used in the robbery, and his flight from police, established his identity as one of the robbers beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to multiple counts of residential break and enter, theft, conspiracy to steal motor vehicles, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The offences were part of "Project Yellowbird," a sophisticated burglary ring targeting affluent Toronto neighbourhoods from late 2013 to August 2014.

The ring stole high-end vehicles, jewelry, electronics, and cash, with losses at individual locations reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Buczel, a first-time offender, appeared to be a central figure in the organization based on phone records and seized property.

Czeranowski had a significant prior record for similar offences.

The court imposed sentences of four years for Buczel and four and a half years for Czeranowski, with credit for pre-sentence custody applied at a 1.5:1 ratio.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and multiple firearm offences after police observed him drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana in a parking lot and saw him hide a shoulder bag under a vehicle.

Police discovered a loaded restricted handgun with a defaced serial number in the bag and 4.13 grams of crack cocaine in the accused’s pocket.

The accused admitted intending to sell the cocaine but denied knowledge of the firearm, claiming he was temporarily holding the bag for a cousin.

The court rejected the testimony of both the accused and the cousin as implausible and untruthful, finding collusion and inconsistencies in their evidence.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the firearm and exercised control over it.

During a jury trial for multiple robbery-related offences, the accused brought a motion for a directed verdict on a count alleging use of an imitation firearm while committing a robbery under s. 85(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the directed verdict test and considered whether there was sufficient admissible evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude that an imitation firearm was used in the robbery of the particular complainant.

While evidence supported that an imitation firearm was used in robberies against other victims during the same incident, there was no evidence that such a weapon was used in the robbery of the specific complainant named in Count 2.

The court held that party liability or common purpose principles could not substitute for proof that an imitation firearm was actually used in the commission of that robbery.

The motion for a directed verdict was granted and the count was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three fraud-related charges arising from her employment as a supervisor at a non-profit daycare centre.

Over approximately 3.5 years, she fraudulently established credit accounts in the centre's name, forged board members' signatures on cheques, and doctored petty cash claims, defrauding the centre of approximately $300,000.

The court imposed a blended sentence consisting of 90 days intermittent imprisonment followed by 639 days conditional sentence (totalling two years less a day), with three years probation.

The sentence balanced the serious nature of the breach of trust fraud against the defendant's significant health challenges (multiple sclerosis), first offender status, guilty plea, and genuine remorse.