Jeffrey M. Neiman

Hesam Dowran pleaded guilty to two counts of voyeurism for making surreptitious video recordings for a sexual purpose.

The incidents involved filming a 16-year-old in a public mall and an unidentified nude woman who was a tenant in his Airbnb.

Police found numerous other voyeuristic videos on his devices.

The Crown sought eight months custody and three years probation, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the repeated and predatory nature of the conduct, the victim's age, breach of trust, and significant victim impact, balanced against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, no prior record, remorse, and significant counselling.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate given the seriousness and extent of the offences.

Dowran was sentenced to four months custody and two years probation.

The defendant was charged with assault and uttering death threats against his wife.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the defendant, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

The court found the complainant's testimony truthful and accurate, supported by circumstantial evidence, and rejected the defendant's testimony as internally inconsistent, unreliable, and untruthful.

The defendant was found guilty of both charges.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for damages arising from an aborted real estate transaction, the plaintiff sought costs of $19,822.64.

The plaintiff had served an offer to settle that was less than the judgment obtained, triggering Rule 49.10(2).

The defendant requested an indulgence to reduce the costs to a partial indemnity scale due to recent health problems and reduced income.

The court declined to reduce the costs award, holding that any indulgence was for the plaintiff to grant, and awarded the costs as requested.

The plaintiff, Katalin Malatinszky, brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages for the defendant, Ahmad Miri's, failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant counterclaimed for the return of his $50,000 deposit and damages, alleging the plaintiff repudiated the agreement and failed to mitigate her losses.

The court found that the plaintiff did not breach the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and acted reasonably in mitigating her damages.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for $144,814.70 plus prejudgment interest and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.