Hanieh Azimi

The defendant, Abad Abdi Shire, was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which can range from 10 to 25 years.

The Crown sought 18-20 years, while the defence sought 12-14 years.

The court considered the egregious circumstances of the offence, including the frenzied and prolonged attack on a defenseless victim, evidence of planning, and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's difficult childhood marked by poverty and bullying, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the aggravating circumstances strongly outweighed the mitigating ones and imposed a parole ineligibility period of 17 years.

During a murder trial, the accused sought to adduce evidence that his former co-accused had pled guilty to manslaughter in relation to the same killing.

The Crown opposed the admission of the plea, arguing it was irrelevant and potentially misleading.

The court held that the guilty plea was admissible as it had some relevance to the accused's credibility and defence that the co-accused was solely responsible.

However, the court ruled that the facts read in support of the co-accused's plea were inadmissible hearsay.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of graffiti found on the exterior walls of a building where a murder occurred.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought to exclude these writings from evidence, arguing they were irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

The Crown contended the writings were relevant to the accused's state of mind, either as a principal or an aider, by demonstrating animus towards the deceased or knowledge of a co-accused's intent.

The court found that the evidence, primarily a security camera video, was insufficient to connect the writings to the accused or his co-accused, rendering them logically irrelevant.

Furthermore, even if relevant, their probative value was extremely slight and significantly outweighed by the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, given their discreditable and potentially confusing nature.

The court excluded the evidence, noting the ruling was provisional and could be revisited if the evidentiary record changed.

Timothy Joslin's application to renew his firearms licence was refused by a firearms officer due to public safety concerns, stemming from his history of impaired driving convictions and perceived disregard for safety rules.

Joslin referred this refusal to the Ontario Court of Justice for review under the Firearms Act.

The court, applying a deferential standard of reasonableness to the firearms officer's decision, found that the officer was justified in refusing the licence renewal.

The court reiterated that the burden was on Joslin to demonstrate that the refusal was "not justified" and confirmed that the officer could consider information beyond the five-year period specified in the Act.

The Chief Firearms Officer's decision was upheld.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm after striking his neighbour with his pick-up truck.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine whether the accused struck the victim intentionally, an aggravating factor for sentencing.

The Crown presented circumstantial evidence, including accident reconstruction and mechanical expert testimony, to prove the accused deliberately drove off the road and into the victim due to suspicions of an affair with his wife.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that the collision was accidental, finding it implausible and inconsistent with physical evidence.

The court concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the collision was intentional.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess alcohol after police discovered his vehicle stuck in the snow-filled side yard of his residential property.

The Crown relied on observations of impairment indicators and breath samples showing 210 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the police entry onto private property and the sufficiency of grounds for the breath demand.

The court found no Charter violations, dismissed the impaired charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment, but convicted on the over 80 charge based on the admissible breath readings.

Status review applications concerning three children found to be in need of protection due to parental substance abuse and domestic conflict.

The court granted custody of two older children to maternal grandparents under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The youngest child was placed with the grandparents subject to Society supervision for nine months.

The court established a five-week access schedule for all three children with their parents to minimize transitions and disruption while maintaining parental relationships.

The court rejected the father's request to have one child placed in his sole care, finding that keeping siblings together was in their best interests.