Glen Tucker

The defendant, Hacar Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

This sentencing decision weighed aggravating factors, including significant physical injuries to the victim (broken nose, chipped tooth, facial bruising) and psychological impact, against numerous mitigating factors.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's lack of criminal record, youthfulness, acknowledgment of responsibility, strong community support, self-initiated counselling, and community service.

The Crown sought a 3-month jail sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional discharge or, alternatively, a conditional sentence of 3 to 6 months.

The court rejected a conditional discharge, deeming it inconsistent with the principles of denunciation and deterrence for the severity of the offence.

However, it found a conditional sentence appropriate given the defendant's rehabilitative efforts and low risk to the community.

A 4-month conditional sentence was imposed, along with an 18-month probation term and ancillary orders.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing his roommate.

The Crown sought 17 years of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the execution-style shooting of an unarmed victim in her home to be highly aggravating.

Despite the offender's challenging background and mental health issues, the court prioritized deterrence and denunciation, imposing a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 16 years.

This judgment re-affirms a finding of guilt for assault causing bodily harm after the case was re-opened to hear new defence evidence.

The court had previously found the defendant guilty, and the defence sought to re-open the case after locating a new witness.

The new witness's testimony was found to be unreliable due to intoxication, marijuana use, and inconsistencies.

The court concluded that the defendant's response to the complainant's initial slap was an unreasonable and excessive use of force, not constituting self-defence, and re-affirmed the conviction.

The defendant, Hacar Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, brought an application to re-open his case after being found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

The application sought to introduce new eyewitness evidence from Kelly Farkas, who was present during the altercation but was not located prior to trial.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, considering admissibility, cogency, and due diligence.

Despite the proposed evidence being sparse, the court found it met the threshold for cogency and credibility, and that the defendant had demonstrated sufficient due diligence in attempting to locate the witness.

The application was granted, the finding of guilt was vacated, and the defence was permitted to call the new witness.

The accused, Solomon Nnadede, was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant, MD, over a nine-month period.

The case turned on credibility and consent.

The complainant testified to three instances of forced vaginal penetration and other non-consensual sexual touching, asserting she eventually "gave up" fighting.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming all sexual activity was consensual based on an "understanding" where he provided financial support in exchange for sex.

The court rejected the accused's "understanding" as a valid defence for consent and found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity.

The accused, Pengxiang Wang, was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle and having over 80 mg of alcohol in his blood.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence, alleging breaches of Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), primarily related to arbitrary detention, unlawful search and seizure, and delays in informing him of rights and providing access to counsel in Mandarin.

The court found no Charter breaches, determining that police had reasonable grounds for detention and arrest, and that Mr. Wang understood his rights despite a language barrier, with officers taking reasonable steps to provide a Mandarin interpreter and access to duty counsel without delay.

Consequently, the evidence was admitted, and the accused was found guilty on both counts.