Jordan Frank Weisz

Criminal trial on multiple counts of assault, assault causing bodily harm, and failing to comply with probation orders arising from three alleged incidents of intimate partner violence in 2023.

The Crown invited dismissal of charges relating to the third incident.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, finding that her combative demeanour under cross-examination was attributable to the prolonged proceedings, the manner of cross-examination, and her personal circumstances as a young Indigenous woman, rather than reflecting on her truthfulness.

The court found the complainant's core evidence on the remaining two incidents was compelling, internally consistent, and corroborated by CCTV footage, medical records, body-worn camera evidence, and photographic documentation of injuries.

A 16-year-old youth pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after shooting and partially paralyzing a victim in downtown Toronto.

The Crown sought an adult sentence of 8-10 years, while the defence sought a youth sentence with time served.

The court applied the two-stage test under s. 72(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

At stage one, the court found the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was not rebutted beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the youth's significant trauma, intergenerational Indigenous trauma, impulsive nature of the offence, substance abuse issues, and remarkable rehabilitation progress during 3 years 9.5 months of pre-trial custody.

At stage two, the court found a youth sentence would hold the youth accountable.

The court imposed a two-year probation order with intensive conditions including the Intensive Support and Supervision Program (ISSP), curfew, counselling, community service, and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition.

This ruling addresses a disclosure application in a sexual assault case.

The accused sought records from municipal by-law officers who initially investigated the incident.

The defence argued these were first-party disclosure, while the Crown contended they were third-party records requiring a Mills application due to the complainant's privacy interests.

The court found that the records, created by municipal peace officers investigating the same incident that led to criminal charges, constituted first-party disclosure.

The complainant's privacy interests did not displace the accused's right to presumptively relevant material from the investigation.

The records were ordered to be vetted and disclosed by the Crown under its Stinchcombe obligations.

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 accused, Michael Assefa, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, exclusion of breathalyzer results, alleging a breach of his section 8 Charter right to privacy due to being video-monitored while urinating in a police holding cell.

The Crown conceded the Charter breach.

Applying the Grant test, the court found the breach serious and its impact significant, leading to the exclusion of the breath readings.

However, the court dismissed the request for a stay of proceedings, finding it was not one of the "clearest of cases" and an alternative remedy (exclusion of evidence) was available.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault with a weapon and two counts of assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on July 30, 2016, at Caribana Day in Toronto.

The Crown relied on eyewitness identification evidence from the two victims, forensic evidence of blood on the accused's clothing, and prior identification evidence.

The court found significant frailties and inconsistencies in the eyewitness evidence, including poor memory, intoxication, stress during the incident, and discrepancies between witness accounts and other evidence.

The court determined that the eyewitness identifications were unreliable and that the forensic evidence, while establishing the accused's presence at the scene, did not establish his involvement in the assaults beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

Eduardo Bohorquez and Qasim Siddiqi were found guilty by a jury of sexual assault with another person contrary to s. 272(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.

The court was tasked with imposing sentence.

The offenders, sexual predators, lured a 19-year-old complainant, S., to Bohorquez's home for non-consensual sexual activity, which they video recorded.

The court rejected the offenders' claims of consent or honest but mistaken belief in consent, emphasizing the power imbalance and the complainant's fear.

The impact on the victim was severe, leading to PTSD and a suicide attempt.

Bohorquez was identified as the leader and more aggressive participant, while Siddiqi was an enthusiastic follower.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, noting the aggravated nature of the offence.

Bohorquez was sentenced to 6 years and 4 months imprisonment, and Siddiqi to 3 years and 7 months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The defendant, an Uber driver, was charged with unlawful confinement and assault after cancelling a trip and rerouting a passenger to Scarborough without her consent.

The Crown alleged the defendant confined the complainant and held her hand against her will.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.

The court found that while the defendant's conduct was reprehensible, the complainant's evidence regarding what she communicated to the defendant was unreliable and ambiguous, and surveillance video from the LCBO suggested the defendant was not acting as someone knowingly confining a person.

The court concluded there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown had established the necessary mens rea, including wilful blindness.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempting to break and enter a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence and theft under five thousand dollars.

The Crown sought a global sentence of twelve months less pre-sentence detention credited at 1.5 to 1, followed by three years probation.

The defence sought time served plus two years probation, emphasizing the accused's difficult personal history as a Kurdish Convention refugee and the minimal nature of the offences.

The court imposed a sentence of time served plus one day in gaol on the attempt charge, with fifteen days concurrent on the theft charge, followed by three years concurrent probation.

The court considered collateral consequences under immigration law but found no risk of deportation given the accused's protected status as a Convention refugee.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences following the discovery of two unregistered revolvers in a garbage area outside his former residence.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and statements made by the accused to police.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: a section 10(b) violation when the accused was psychologically detained and questioned without being advised of his right to counsel, and section 8 violations relating to an unjustified strip search conducted without proper grounds and not in private.

The court excluded the accused's statements as a remedy under section 24(2) of the Charter.

On the merits, the court found that the Crown failed to prove possession of the firearms beyond a reasonable doubt, both without the excluded statements and, alternatively, on the basis that the accused's complete forgetfulness about the firearms negated the required mens rea for constructive possession on the date in question.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with over 80 care or control and impaired care or control.

Police arrested the accused for possession of stolen property and subsequently made a breathalyzer demand based on observations of an odour of alcohol and allegedly slurred speech.

The defence brought a Charter application to exclude the breath sample results, arguing the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the demand.

The court found that the observations of alcohol odour and slurred speech were insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and the breathalyzer demand, constituting a section 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the seriousness of the breach and deprivation of liberty outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault, sexual touching of a person under 16, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

At sentencing, the court imposed a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order for ten years.

The Crown subsequently brought an application to correct the order to life, as mandated by the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to correct the error.

The court held that while judges may correct errors in expressing their manifest intention, they cannot simply correct manifest errors where the original decision was one of commission rather than omission.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to kill and burn down a house following a confrontation with his landlord over a Rent Tribunal Order requiring him to pay outstanding rent.

The Crown alleged the accused threatened to kill the landlord and burn down the house.

The defence called evidence from the accused's father and girlfriend denying the threats were made.

The court found the Crown witnesses credible but harboured reasonable doubt about whether the threats were actually uttered, particularly given the landlord's failure to mention the serious threats (death and arson) to the 911 operator immediately after the alleged incident, combined with the landlord's strong motive to evict the accused.

The accused was acquitted.