Hussein Aly

The court sentenced Tahir Ul-Haq for trafficking fentanyl, after he sold what he believed to be cocaine to a friend, resulting in one death and one serious injury.

The court found that Mr. Ul-Haq was not a commercial trafficker, did not know the substance was fentanyl, and sold it as a favour without profit.

The sentence imposed was a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by probation, with ancillary orders.

The decision carefully weighs aggravating and mitigating factors, including the tragic consequences, Mr. Ul-Haq’s personal circumstances, and the collateral immigration consequences of conviction.

The accused, Salman Jogiyat, was acquitted of first-degree murder but pleaded guilty to contempt of court for refusing to disclose the identities of other individuals involved in the circumstances surrounding the murder during his trial testimony, despite being ordered to do so by the court.

The court considered the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, including deterrence and denunciation, as well as the accused's personal circumstances, including a Mild Intellectual Disability and a significant criminal record.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary term, while the defence suggested 24 to 30 months.

The court imposed a three-year term of penitentiary imprisonment, finding it proportionate and necessary for deterrence and denunciation, aligning with the established sentencing range for such contempt.

The Crown sought to admit ante-mortem statements made by the deceased, Sangita Sharma, in a murder trial against three defendants.

The statements concerned Ms. Sharma's business dealings and disputes with an alleged orchestrator of her contract killing, Mian Afzalaqif.

The court ruled on the admissibility of these statements under traditional hearsay exceptions (state of mind, statement of intention) and the principled approach to hearsay (necessity and threshold reliability).

The court found the statements admissible, deeming them relevant to motive and identity, and satisfying the reliability criteria despite defence concerns regarding the witness's credibility.

Thomas Patrick Sliwinski pleaded guilty to manslaughter, unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and pointing a firearm.

The charges stemmed from a campaign of intimidation and violence against a civil litigation lawyer, Lisa Carr, including an attempted shooting, and involvement in the fatal shooting of Soheil Rafipour.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and protection of society given the planned nature of the crimes, their impact on victims, and the attack on the administration of justice.

The accused, Kevin Barreau, was charged with five Criminal Code offences related to human trafficking and procuring.

The trial involved complex procedural issues, including an application to excuse a witness (P.C. Rice) due to PTSD and a Charter application for a stay of proceedings based on alleged police misconduct, including racial slurs and denial of counsel.

The court found the accused guilty of human trafficking, receiving material benefit from human trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

The charge of facilitating another offence was acquitted.

The Charter application for a stay was dismissed, but a s. 10(b) breach (denial of counsel) was found, entitling the accused to sentencing credit.

The appellant was one of 104 people arrested as part of Project Raphael, an online police investigation targeting buyers in the juvenile sex work market.

The appellant responded to an advertisement on Backpage.com and, after the undercover officer disclosed being underage, attended a hotel room and was arrested.

He was convicted by jury on child luring and communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor.

The appellant sought a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing both opportunity-based entrapment (no bona fide inquiry, no personal reasonable suspicion) and inducement-based entrapment (personal vulnerability from undiagnosed Asperger's Syndrome).

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Project Raphael was a bona fide inquiry per the companion case R. v. Ramelson, 2022 SCC 44, and that the inducement framework revision argument was better left for another case as no error in the findings below was demonstrated.

The defendant, Jehangir Khan, was charged with sexual assault.

The case hinged on the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses versus the defendant's testimony.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and found the defendant's evidence credible and reliable, corroborated by a third-party witness (PW).

The complainant's testimony was deemed untrustworthy due to altered text messages, evasiveness, internal inconsistencies, and collaboration with other witnesses to craft a false narrative.

The Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

Three offenders pleaded guilty to multiple firearms offences, including aggravated assault and reckless discharge of a firearm, following a planned shooting at a taxicab that wounded one passenger.

One offender also pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the public shooting alongside mitigating factors, including guilty pleas, youth, and exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Global sentences of 6 years were imposed for two offenders and 7.5 years for the third, before applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, obstructing a police officer, and breach of recognizance after a traffic stop where he gave a false name and was found with 25 grams of cocaine.

The Crown sought 10 months' custody, while the defence sought time served based on pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

The court sentenced the offender to four months' custody, credited as time served, plus 12 months of probation, noting his rehabilitation efforts and guilty plea.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun found in his satchel during an investigative detention.

The detention occurred in the hallway outside an apartment where police were executing a search warrant.

The police claimed they had grounds to detain the accused because an occupant of the apartment yelled at the accused's companion.

However, elevator video evidence contradicted the police timeline, showing the accused was detained within seconds of exiting the elevator.

The court found the police officers colluded and fabricated evidence to justify the unlawful detention.

The court found breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Charter and excluded the firearm under s. 24(2).

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed release on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court found no basis for detention on the primary or secondary grounds, noting the applicant's lack of criminal record and proposed house arrest plan.

However, applying the factors from R. v. St-Cloud, the court concluded detention was necessary on the tertiary ground to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given the overwhelming strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offence, and the execution-style use of a firearm.

The offender, a bar manager, was convicted of sexual assault and voyeurism after luring an employee into a basement office, sexually assaulting her, and surreptitiously filming the assault.

The court found the predatory nature of the offence, the breach of trust, and the voyeuristic purpose to be highly aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 18 months imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, along with DNA, weapons prohibition, and sex offender registry orders.

The defendant, Enzo Dario De Jesus Carrasco, was charged with sexual assault, voyeurism, and transmitting an intimate image.

The court found the defendant's testimony to be untruthful and inconsistent with text messages.

The complainant's evidence, despite some inconsistencies, was found credible and consistent with corroborating text messages.

The court convicted the defendant of sexual assault and voyeurism, finding that the touching was sexual, non-consensual, and that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement office where she was filmed.

The defendant was acquitted of transmitting an intimate image due to reasonable doubt regarding criminal intent, based on a text message indicating the image was sent by mistake.

The accused was charged with firearms and drug offences following a police takedown of a taxi.

He brought pre-trial applications alleging that police used excessive force by striking him on the head with a firearm while he was compliant and face down on the ground, violating his rights under s. 7 of the Charter.

The court found serious credibility issues with the police officers' testimony and accepted the accused's version of events, supported by an independent witness.

Concluding that the police conduct contravened fundamental notions of justice and undermined the integrity of the judicial process, the court granted a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The accused, charged with attempted murder and other serious offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to trial delay.

The total delay was approximately 35 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court calculated the net delay for each accused by deducting defence delay, including periods of counsel unavailability and a change of counsel.

The court found that the delay caused by a trial adjournment requested by the defence due to late disclosure of a cell phone extraction report was not attributable to the defence.

The net delay for both accused remained above the 30-month ceiling, and the court granted the stay of proceedings.

This endorsement provides reasons for four trial rulings made during a jury trial for manslaughter, where the accused were ultimately found not guilty.

The rulings addressed: (1) whether jurors could ask witnesses questions (denied, emphasizing the adversarial nature of criminal trials); (2) the Crown's re-examination of a witness on prior consistent statements (allowed to clarify a one-sided picture created during cross-examination); (3) the Crown's request to introduce bad character evidence against one accused (denied, as the defence had not put character in issue); and (4) the Crown's request for a specific jury charge on aiding and abetting related to a push by one accused (declined as speculative and unduly complex given the Crown's primary theory of a group beating).

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL of blood (Over 80).

The Crown proved the reliability of breath test readings and the elements of the Over 80 offence.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the traffic stop, arrest, searches, and right to counsel advice under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the initial traffic stop was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act based on the officer's observation of an unusual noise from the vehicle, its identification as a BMW with front-end damage, and the recent hit-and-run incident involving a similar vehicle in the area.

The arrest for driving while suspended was lawful and not arbitrary.

Searches incident to arrest were properly limited and authorized by law.

While minor breaches of section 10(b) rights occurred, they did not warrant exclusion of the breath test evidence.

The court found the accused guilty.

At the close of the Crown's case in a jury trial for conspiracy to commit murder and related firearms offences, the accused moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy count.

The accused argued there was no evidence they participated in a conspiracy to murder the complainant.

The court reviewed the circumstantial evidence, including a prior bank fraud involving the parties, cell phone communications, video surveillance of the accused acting in concert, and the coordinated ambush of the complainant.

Applying the test for a directed verdict, the court found there was some admissible evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could infer an agreement to murder the complainant.

The application for a directed verdict was dismissed.

Four offenders with no prior criminal records were sentenced for their roles in a sophisticated commercial cocaine trafficking operation involving 43 kilograms of cocaine.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount principles for large-scale cocaine trafficking.

The directing mind received 12 years, a fully committed participant received 11 years, a trusted courier received 10 years (less pre-trial credit), and a minor participant whose vehicle was used received 6 years.

A forfeiture order was also made for the vehicle used in the offence.

Prior to the testimony of the complainant in a trial for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, the parties sought a ruling on the permissible scope of cross-examination regarding the complainant's prior acts of misconduct.

The court ruled that defence counsel could cross-examine the complainant on the factual details underlying his prior convictions, withdrawn charges, and uncharged misconduct detailed in police occurrence reports, provided there was a good faith basis.

However, defence counsel could not cross-examine the complainant on the factual allegations underlying charges for which he was acquitted, as an acquittal represents a verdict of legal innocence, though they could question him on accompanying uncharged fraudulent activities.