Joseph S. Nadel

Faizan Ali was found guilty of multiple weapons and drug trafficking offences following a motor vehicle collision.

He absconded prior to his sentencing hearing.

The court imposed a global sentence, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the serious nature of the offences, the combination of drugs and loaded illegal handguns, and the fact that offences were committed while on a release order.

Mitigating factors, such as his youth and minimal prior record, were considered.

Sentences were imposed in absentia, with some counts stayed under the Kienapple principle and others made concurrent or consecutive to achieve a fit global sentence.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against the accused, T.B., involving his niece, D.B., when she was five or six years old.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, supported by her mother's evidence regarding opportunity.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to the significant passage of time, her young age at the time of the alleged events, and inconsistencies in her and her mother's recollections.

The defence also highlighted the accused's identical twin brother as a potential source of confusion.

The court, applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and considering the unique aspects of child witness testimony, rejected the accused's denial, finding his evidence unreliable and incredible due to numerous contradictions and his extensive criminal record for dishonesty.

The court found the complainant's detailed narrative compelling and credible, despite minor inconsistencies, and ultimately found the accused guilty on all counts.

S.F. was found guilty after a summary trial of distributing intimate imagery of his girlfriend, M.G., without her consent, contrary to s. 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

He uploaded two recordings of them engaging in sexual intercourse to Pornhub.

Although the recordings were consensual, their distribution was not.

The videos were discovered by friends of the complainant and subsequently removed from Pornhub, but copies remained in circulation.

The defendant apologized and expressed remorse, but the complainant suffered significant emotional and social impact.

The court considered aggravating factors (abuse of intimate partner and trust, significant victim impact) and mitigating factors (first offender, highly educated, immediate apology, no vindictive motivation, good rehabilitation prospects).

The Crown sought a five-month jail sentence and 18 months probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected both extremes, finding a conditional discharge too lenient given the absence of a guilty plea, and incarceration excessive for a first offender in these circumstances.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 14 months probation, including conditions such as no contact with the victim, community service, and restrictions on possessing intimate images.

Following trial, the accused was convicted of invitation to sexual touching of a child and exposure, with the latter count conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The offences involved repeatedly inviting a young child to masturbate the accused in his trailer during a summer while the parties were acquaintances in a recreational community.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for child sexual offences.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim’s young age, repeated incidents, and a relationship of trust developed through social familiarity.

Balancing those factors with the offender’s age, health, and lack of prior sexual offences, the court imposed two years’ imprisonment followed by three years’ probation with extensive ancillary orders.

Abubakar Bukardikwa was convicted of 12 counts related to a shooting incident where he fired a semi-automatic handgun multiple times in a public parking lot, striking the victim, Jason Lamarche, three times in the leg.

The court considered sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, balancing them with the offender's youth and first-offender status.

The decision applied the Kienapple principle for conditional stays and extensively discussed pre-sentence custody credits (Summers and Duncan).

The Crown sought a total of nine years, while the defence proposed five to six years.

The court imposed an effective total sentence of six years, eleven months, and twelve days, comprising a sentence of six years, five months, and twelve days on the charge of discharging a firearm with intent, and a consecutive six-month sentence for possessing a firearm while prohibited.

The accused was charged with exposing his genitals and inviting a child to touch him for a sexual purpose.

The offences allegedly occurred in the bedroom of the accused's trailer during the summer of 2016.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was internally inconsistent regarding the frequency of the abuse and that the busy, social nature of the trailer park made the allegations implausible due to a lack of opportunity.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and principles for assessing child witnesses, finding the complainant's core narrative credible and reliable despite peripheral inconsistencies.

The accused's denial was rejected, and he was found guilty of both counts.

The offender, Jesse Egan, was sentenced for possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking (110.64 grams).

The Crown sought 6-8 years imprisonment, classifying him as a mid-level trafficker, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the pernicious nature of fentanyl and the national opioid crisis.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years house arrest followed by three years probation, highlighting the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts since his arrest, including overcoming addiction, starting a business, and supporting his young family, and arguing his addiction stemmed from a prior injury.

The court found a conditional sentence unfit given the quantity and danger of fentanyl, and the offender's prior criminal record.

While acknowledging the offender's commendable rehabilitation and applying credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions (Downes and Duncan credit), the court imposed a penitentiary sentence of five years, reduced to four years and ten months after credit.

The accused was arrested for drug trafficking and subjected to a strip search, which yielded no drugs.

Drugs were later found hidden in his vehicle.

The accused brought Charter applications under s. 8 and s. 10(b).

The court found the strip search was lawful and did not violate s. 8.

However, the court found multiple serious breaches of the accused's s. 10(b) rights, including the police refusing to allow him to contact his mother to obtain the name of his counsel of choice, delaying his access to counsel, questioning him before his rights were implemented, and failing to keep him informed of efforts to contact counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the drugs would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the serious and cavalier nature of the police misconduct.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

Two police officers were charged with assault and assault with a weapon following the arrest of a fleeing suspect.

The suspect had engaged in a high-speed pursuit and attempted to hide under a barbecue.

The officers used a Taser and multiple leg strikes to subdue him.

The court found that while the initial use of force was justified under s. 25 of the Criminal Code due to the dangerous and dynamic circumstances, the final leg strikes delivered after the suspect was immobilized and pulled out from under the barbecue were gratuitous and constituted unjustified assaults.

Both officers were found guilty of assault level one.

The accused, S.S., was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and inviting a sexual touch involving the complainant, E.M., who was eight at the time of the alleged incident in March 2015.

The defense argued that the Crown's case failed on all three prongs of the R. v. W.(D.) analysis, asserting S.S.'s denial should be accepted or at least not rejected, and E.M.'s evidence was unreliable.

The Crown contended S.S.'s evidence was implausible and evasive, and E.M.'s testimony was credible despite minor inconsistencies.

The court found S.S.'s evidence reasonable and did not reject his denial, concluding that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to the unreliability and improbability of the complainant's account regarding material details and the mechanics of the alleged events.

Darren Smith, a police officer, was found guilty of forgery and uttering for falsifying destruction waivers for surrendered firearms.

The offences were not for personal gain but to avoid inconvenience.

The court considered mitigating factors, including his PTSD and alcohol abuse, and aggravating factors, primarily the breach of trust as a police officer.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with community service, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months probation and 75 hours of community service, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's rehabilitation and the less serious nature of the specific crimes compared to other police misconduct.

The accused, C.I., was charged with criminal harassment, multiple counts of sexual assault (including with a weapon), and assault against his former intimate partner, M.P. The court dismissed the criminal harassment charge, finding that M.P.'s fear of reconciliation was not the type of fear intended by the legislation.

However, the court found C.I. guilty on all other counts of sexual assault and assault, largely based on M.P.'s credible testimony, corroborated by other witnesses and C.I.'s own inconsistent statements and admissions.

The judge rejected the defence's arguments regarding M.P.'s credibility and reliability, including the "spectre of motive to fabricate."

Mr. Fontaine was charged with impaired driving after a single-vehicle accident.

He brought Charter applications under s. 7 and s. 10(b) to exclude breath test results, alleging failure to provide medical attention and improper implementation of his right to counsel.

The court found Mr. Fontaine to be an incredible and unreliable witness, rejecting his claims of serious injury and improper counsel invocation.

The court dismissed both Charter applications, finding no breach of his rights.

A police officer was charged with two counts of forgery and two counts of uttering forged documents after he created firearms destruction waivers by forging the signatures of the weapon owners without their authorization.

The officer completed the waiver forms entirely, signed the owners' names, and attested to witnessing those signatures before uploading the documents to the police service's document management system.

The court found that the signatures were material elements of the waivers, that no authorization existed (express or implied), and that the officer possessed the requisite mens rea for forgery (intent to deceive).

The court rejected the defence arguments that the signatures were non-essential, that implied consent existed, and that uploading the documents did not constitute "using" them.

The officer was convicted on all four counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography in the form of text messages sent on December 25, 2017, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The messages were sent to a woman with three pre-pubescent children, whom the accused had met online.

The accused explicitly described sexual acts he wished to perform on the children and attempted to persuade the recipient to allow him to babysit and engage in such conduct.

The Crown sought six months custody plus probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, an intermittent sentence.

The court imposed 90 days jail plus time served (23 days credited at 1.5:1), 36 months probation, and ancillary orders including a lifetime sex offender information registration order, a s. 161 order restricting access to children, and a s. 109 firearms prohibition order.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault arising from a first date with a 16-year-old complainant.

The Crown alleged multiple acts of unwanted sexual touching including fondling of breasts and genitals, and forced oral sex.

The accused admitted to the fondling but denied forcing the complainant to perform fellatio, claiming it was consensual.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of sexual assault for the fondling of the complainant's breasts and inner thigh and crotch area, but acquitted him of the allegation of forced fellatio, finding a reasonable doubt existed regarding whether the oral sex was non-consensual.

The defendant, a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, organized and promoted two vacation packages without being registered as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act.

The Bahamas cruise package resulted in $25,089.91 in losses to 104 victims, and the Hawaii vacation package resulted in $45,500.00 in losses with no value delivered.

The defendant was convicted of two counts of acting as a travel agent without registration.

At sentencing, the court found aggravated moral wrongdoing, including misappropriation of funds, continued promotion of trips while unable to deliver, and deliberate deception of victims.

The court imposed intermittent jail sentences totaling 75 days on the primary count and 45 days concurrent on the secondary count, rejecting arguments for a non-custodial sentence despite the defendant's lack of prior record and extensive volunteer history.

The accused was convicted after trial of assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and threatening death arising from a violent incident with his former common law partner.

The Crown sought a maximum reformatory sentence with ancillary orders.

The defence sought an intermittent sentence on the sexual assault count and a conditional sentence on the remaining counts.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totalling 16 months in a provincial reformatory, followed by three years of probation, while considering Gladue principles applicable to the Indigenous accused and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code for allegedly raping the complainant on October 15, 2016, during an access visit to their infant daughter.

The complainant did not report the allegation until January 2017, after the accused's counsel wrote to her complaining about denial of access.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant's testimony and digital evidence (photographs and text messages) showing bruises on the complainant's body.

The defence contended the digital exhibits were forgeries created by the complainant using her computer graphics skills.

The court found the accused not guilty of sexual assault, finding a reasonable doubt as to whether the contact was non-consensual.

However, the court found the accused caused bruising to the complainant but could not convict on assault causing bodily harm due to the wording of the information and reasonable doubt regarding mens rea.

The defendant, an unregistered individual, organized and promoted vacation cruise packages to the Bahamas and Hawaii for members of a local Legion and the public.

Purchasers experienced significant issues, including cancelled cruises, unprovided amenities, and unrefunded payments.

The Travel Industry Council of Ontario charged the defendant with acting as a travel agent without registration under the Travel Industry Act.

The court found that the defendant sold travel services provided by another person to consumers, thereby acting as a travel agent.

The defendant failed to establish a due diligence defence and was found guilty on both counts.