Ian Donnell

Crown application for a "High Risk Accused" designation under s. 672.64(1) of the Criminal Code for an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (schizophrenia) for serious violent offences including robbery, attempted break and enter, and two counts of aggravated assault.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the offences were serious and brutal in nature, the Crown failed to establish a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence endangering another's life or safety.

The accused has responded well to treatment, is currently symptom-free, and demonstrates insight into his condition, though uncertainty remains regarding his adherence to treatment if released into the community without supervision.

This sentencing decision addresses the conviction of Waisuddin Akbari for uttering threats to bomb synagogues and kill Jewish people, motivated by hate and prejudice.

The court carefully considers the Kienapple principle regarding multiple convictions arising from the same act but finds the two offences distinct.

The sentencing analysis balances aggravating factors, notably the hate-motivated nature of the threats and their impact on the Jewish community, with mitigating factors including Akbari’s background, remorse, and community support.

The court rejects a conditional discharge as contrary to public interest and imposes a 60-day conditional sentence order with strict house arrest conditions, followed by three years probation, DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

This decision concerns Kay Louise Belk, who stabbed her husband while he slept without any preceding conflict.

She was found to be in a dreamlike state, hearing voices compelling her to act.

The court accepted a joint submission that she was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a confirmed Major Neurocognitive Disorder of moderate severity, caused by multiple etiologies including Alzheimer’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and vascular disease.

The forensic psychiatric assessment concluded that Ms. Belk was unable to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of her act at the time.

The court accordingly rendered an NCR verdict and deferred disposition to the Ontario Review Board.

The defendant was charged with nine counts of assault, threatening, and sexual assault against his wife spanning from 2003 to 2013.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the viva voce evidence of the complainant, who described a pattern of physical and sexual abuse during their marriage.

The defendant denied all allegations and testified that he would leave the house during arguments.

The court found the complainant's evidence largely uncorroborated, internally inconsistent, and lacking in credibility.

The defendant's evidence was forthright and not seriously shaken in cross-examination.

The court determined that the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The offender was sentenced for sexual assault against a victim who was his adopted sister, having joined the family at age 13.

The offence occurred when the victim blacked out after drinking with the offender and woke to find him touching her.

The court considered the familial breach of trust as a significant aggravating factor and the offender's first offender status and guilty plea as mitigating factors.

A joint submission for sentencing was accepted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on breath sample evidence obtained at the police station.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the officer failed to make a valid demand for the approved screening device immediately upon forming reasonable suspicion, unlawfully detained the accused at the roadside without informing him of his detention or reasons therefor, and failed to advise the accused of his right to counsel.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with driving while suspended contrary to s. 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and displaying a suspended driver's licence contrary to s. 35(1)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown proved the defendant was a suspended driver on the date in question.

The defendant raised a due diligence defence, claiming he was confused about remedial measures requirements and had not received notice of suspension by mail.

The court found the defendant had been personally served with notice of suspension and that his actions fell short of what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances.

The court rejected the defence of officially induced error and convicted the defendant on both charges.