Judyth Mari-Anne Rekai

The offender was found guilty of sexually assaulting his intimate partner while she was asleep.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4 years, while the defence sought 2 to 2.5 years.

The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal record, and the mitigating factor of a severe assault the offender suffered while in pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdowns.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of failing to comply with probation and a non-communication order by repeatedly contacting his former partner while in custody and on parole.

The court emphasized denunciation and specific deterrence given the offender's history of domestic violence and blatant disregard for court orders.

The offender was sentenced to one day in jail, after receiving 22 months of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdown conditions, followed by three years of probation with strict non-contact conditions.

The accused were charged with importing cocaine into Canada after arriving at Pearson International Airport from St. Lucia with cocaine hidden in their suitcases.

They admitted to the importation but raised the defence of duress, claiming they were threatened at gunpoint and tortured by men in St. Lucia who forced them to carry the drugs.

The court rejected the defence, finding the accused's testimony lacked credibility and was contradicted by their actions and communications.

The court further held that even if the threats had occurred, the accused had a safe avenue of escape by reporting the matter to Canadian authorities upon arrival.

Both accused were convicted.

A youth was convicted of dangerous driving causing death following a trial.

The offence occurred when the youth, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, struck and killed a pedestrian with a rental car in a parking lot.

The incident arose from a confrontation in which the victim, acting as a Good Samaritan, attempted to stop the youth after witnessing him hit a stroller.

The youth, frightened and perceiving a threat, reversed the vehicle and struck the victim.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 12 months open custody followed by six months community supervision and probation, plus a 10-year driving prohibition.

The defence sought probation only with a maximum three-year driving prohibition.

The court imposed a two-year probation order with conditions including 100 hours of community service and a five-year driving prohibition, finding that custody was not necessary and that the youth's autism spectrum disorder was a significant mitigating factor.

Four defendants were convicted of over 100 fraud-related counts involving a sophisticated bust-out fraud scheme targeting financial institutions.

The two male defendants (Kenegarajah and K.N.) were the primary architects and operators of the scheme, while the two female defendants (Kanagarajah and A.N.) played minor supporting roles.

The scheme operated from 2001 to 2010, resulting in losses exceeding $1.7 million to various financial institutions.

The court imposed custodial sentences on the male defendants and conditional sentences on the female defendants, along with forfeiture orders for proceeds of crime.

Five defendants were tried on over 100 fraud-related counts involving a sophisticated "bust out" credit card fraud scheme spanning approximately a decade.

The Crown alleged that Kuhen Neshan and Ramanan Kenegarajah were the leaders of a criminal organization that defrauded financial institutions of hundreds of thousands of dollars through fraudulent credit card applications, identity theft, and money laundering.

The scheme involved creating false identities, using post office boxes to evade detection, and purchasing real estate to launder proceeds.

The trial lasted 28 days over 18 months, with the Crown calling 47 witnesses and tendering 134 exhibits.

The defendants elected not to call evidence and raised various Charter challenges and legal arguments regarding jurisdiction, conspiracy, and the single transaction rule.

The young offender appellant challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's alternative measures programme, arguing that its admission criteria infringed sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, relying on its concurrent judgment in R. v. S. (G.), which held that section 4 of the Young Offenders Act does not oblige provinces to implement such a programme and that the admission criteria do not infringe the Charter.