Imran Shaikh

The defendant, Sean Ledoux, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to sexual assault after having unprotected vaginal sex with a friend who was unconscious due to alcohol and drug intoxication.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, plus probation, emphasizing Gladue principles and mitigating factors.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, victim vulnerability, duration of the assault, lack of condom use, and profound psychological and financial harm to the victim, who is a Queer Black woman.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's guilty plea, genuine remorse, compliance with bail, pro-social behaviour, care for his nephew, his mother's illness, and his Indigenous background marked by intergenerational trauma and alcohol abuse.

Applying the principles from R. v. R.S., the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for the seriousness of the offence, requiring an institutional sentence for denunciation and deterrence.

However, due to the compelling Gladue principles and other mitigating factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years probation, which is below the typical range for such offences.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, weapons prohibitions, and SOIRA registration.

The defendant, Colin Ramsay, pleaded guilty to communicating with a person under 18 for the purpose of facilitating sexual exploitation.

The Crown proceeded summarily, which carried a six-month mandatory minimum sentence.

The defence challenged the constitutional validity of this mandatory minimum under s.12 of the Charter.

The court, applying the principles of horizontal stare decisis from R. v. Sullivan, found itself bound by R. v. Hems, which held s.172.1(2)(b) of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional, rendering the mandatory minimum inoperative.

Considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, planning, and significant interference with the victim, balanced against mitigating factors including the offender's guilty plea, first-offender status, low risk of recidivism, and his role as sole caregiver for his disabled brother, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day with strict house arrest.

This sentence was deemed to adequately address denunciation and general deterrence while also serving rehabilitative and restorative goals by allowing the offender to continue caring for his brother.

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 defendant, Khalid Kheyyatfeizi, was charged with sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was credibility and reliability regarding consent.

The complainant testified that the defendant touched her sexually without consent, despite her verbal and physical rejections.

The defendant claimed consent and reciprocation.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and consistent, rejecting the defence's suggestions of fabrication due to guilt or financial leverage.

The defendant's testimony was found not credible due to inconsistencies.

The court concluded that the Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Gregory Potter, was found guilty of Criminal Harassment.

Prior to conviction, the Crown requested an assessment of Mr. Potter's mental condition at the time of the offence, pursuant to s.672.11(b) of the Criminal Code, to determine if he was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.

The defence opposed, arguing Mr. Potter's mental status was not put into evidence and no medical reports were before the court.

The court found that there were reasonable grounds, based on Mr. Potter's delusional statements and behaviour during the trial and in his communications, to believe he may have been suffering from a mental disorder affecting his criminal responsibility.

The Crown's application for an NCR assessment was granted.

This case concerns a criminal harassment trial where the accused, Gregory Potter, was charged with repeatedly communicating with the complainant, Dr. Michael Bartucci, over an eight-year period, culminating in threatening voicemails.

The communications escalated from romantic overtures to defamatory and frightening allegations, causing the complainant to fear for his safety.

The court addressed whether two voicemails on a single day constituted "repeated communication" under the Criminal Code, considering the extensive history between the parties.

The court found that the Crown proved the actus reus and mens rea of the offence, but reserved a final verdict pending submissions on the issue of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR).

The offender was convicted of accessing, possessing, and making child pornography available.

The Crown sought a 3.5-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence, citing the severe medical and psychological afflictions of the offender's wife and the collateral consequences of his incarceration.

The court balanced the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for child pornography offences against the offender's low risk of reoffending, rehabilitative efforts, and family circumstances.

The court imposed a blended global sentence of two years less a day, consisting of 18 months in custody for accessing and possessing, followed by a 6-month conditional sentence for making available, plus three years of probation.

The accused, Suhail Alsendi, faced charges of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and carrying a concealed weapon.

The trial included a blended voir dire concerning alleged Charter rights violations (ss. 9 and 10(b)).

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the BB gun was a weapon or firearm, or that he intended to use it in a dangerous manner, or that he intended to conceal it.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted on both charges, rendering the Charter remedy discussion moot.

The accused was charged with possessing, accessing, and making child pornography available after police executed a search warrant at his residence and found illicit files on his computer.

During a blended voir dire and trial, the court found that police breached the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights by failing to promptly caution him upon detention and delaying his access to counsel for over three hours.

Consequently, the accused's initial utterances were excluded under s. 24(2).

However, portions of a subsequent videotaped interview were admitted, as they were voluntary and survived s. 24(2) scrutiny despite being tainted by the earlier breaches.

Relying on the admitted statements and circumstantial evidence of the accused's sophisticated computer usage, the court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The offender, a 19-year-old international student, was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for second-degree murder.

The offender returned to the victim's home after an initial altercation and assaulted the victim, causing a fatal rupture of the victim's vertebral artery.

The court found the assault was a planned and premeditated ambush in the victim's home, elevating the moral blameworthiness of the offence.

After weighing the aggravating factors against the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, reduced to 53 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

Albert Edward King was convicted of perjury after deliberately misrepresenting his history as a jailhouse informant during a first-degree murder preliminary hearing, falsely claiming he had never been an informant or testified previously.

The court considered the gravity of perjury, particularly when committed by jailhouse informants, and applied sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence.

Aggravating factors included the planned nature of the perjury in a serious criminal proceeding and its impact on the preliminary hearing's truth-seeking function.

Mitigating factors included King's age, abusive upbringing, a 14-year gap in criminal convictions, and positive family support.

The Crown sought 2.5 years imprisonment, while the defence requested a suspended or intermittent sentence.

The court sentenced King to 2 years imprisonment and imposed a DNA order.

The defendant, Vashindra Thakoordeen, was found guilty of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the victim's heightened vulnerability due to intoxication, the assault being committed in concert with another person, dragging and confinement, gratuitous violence, occurrence in a secluded area, the defendant's leading role, internal digital penetration, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included no prior relevant criminal record, positive family support, positive work history, and relative youth.

The court also considered the co-accused's sentence for parity.

The defendant was sentenced to 2 years' incarceration, along with ancillary orders for DNA, communication prohibition, Sex Offenders Information Registration for 20 years, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused, Albert Edward King, was charged with perjury for allegedly providing false statements under oath during the preliminary hearing of R. v. Chouart and Marshall.

The Crown alleged King intentionally misled the court about his history as a jail-house informant, prior testimonies, and previous confessions from inmates.

The defence argued King did not intend to mislead, citing a belief in a "gag order" and confusing questions.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that King purposely misled the preliminary hearing court regarding his prior jail-house informant activities and previous confessions, rejecting his "mistake of law" defence concerning publication bans.

The court had reasonable doubt regarding the perjury allegation concerning Crime Stoppers use.

King was found guilty of perjury.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant alleged sexual assault by the accused and a co-accused in a parking lot, supported by the co-accused's testimony, video surveillance, and taxi drivers' accounts.

The accused denied the assault, claiming he only assisted the co-accused.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting his denial and accepting the complainant's and co-accused's evidence, corroborated by video and other circumstantial evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b).

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) relating to investigative detention at the hospital and the Over 80 charge was dismissed.

The trial proceeded on the impaired driving charge.

The court found that civilian witnesses provided credible evidence of the accident, the accused's identity as the driver, and indicia of impairment including stumbling, smell of alcohol, and unresponsiveness.

The court concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and that the Crown proved all essential elements of impaired driving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conviction was entered.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while her blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

She was stopped for an expired validation tag, and the officer detected alcohol and administered an approved screening device test which registered a fail.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples at the police station showing 160 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

The defence challenged whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable and whether the officer could rely on the ASD result.

The court found the Crown proved the samples were taken as soon as practicable and that the officer had reasonable grounds to rely on the ASD result.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with driving with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop on March 26, 2015.

The Crown presented evidence of the accused's dangerous driving, a failed approved screening device test, and breath samples exceeding the legal limit.

The defence raised eight Charter and procedural issues, including questions regarding reasonable suspicion, the "forthwith" requirement, the validity of the approved instrument demand, and the right to counsel.

While the court found a breach of the right to counsel due to inadequate police documentation regarding the implementation of the accused's request to contact counsel of choice, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The trial focused on whether breath testing results should be excluded due to alleged Charter violations.

The accused was stopped for traffic violations and subsequently subjected to an approved screening device test and breath samples at the police station.

The central issue was whether the police failed to inform the accused of the reason for his continued detention and his right to counsel in a timely manner.

The applicant was charged with Care and Control over 80 mg and Impaired Care and Control following observations of her sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle in live traffic on Bayview Avenue.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking to stay proceedings or exclude evidence including breath samples, statements, and observations based on alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest existed, but determined that no valid breath demand was made because the officer making the demand did not receive information regarding the grounds for arrest.

The court excluded the breath samples and readings but declined to stay proceedings.

The applicant's detention at the police division after medical clearance was found to be arbitrary, though the duration was not sufficiently egregious to warrant a stay.

The defendant was charged with two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of theft of marijuana.

The Crown alleged that the defendant aided and abetted an individual known as "Pimp" in robbing the complainant of marijuana during a drug transaction.

The key issue was credibility.

The court found the defendant guilty of theft but acquitted him on both assault with a weapon charges.

The court determined that while the defendant's conduct supported an inference of knowledge and intent regarding the theft, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of or intended the use of a weapon in the assault, and that the defendant's driving of the vehicle was motivated by escape rather than intent to apply force.