Kathy Jalali

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm to her nephew following a trial.

The Crown sought imprisonment of 21-30 days followed by two years probation.

The defence sought a suspended sentence with one year probation or alternatively a conditional sentence.

The court imposed 21 days imprisonment followed by two years probation, rejecting both a conditional sentence and suspended sentence as inconsistent with the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence required for unprovoked violence causing bodily harm.

The court found the assault was serious, unprovoked, involved a weapon, and the defendant showed no remorse or insight into her actions.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code and one count of distributing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

Over a three-day period in September 2016, the accused engaged in online chats with an undercover police officer, discussing sexual acts with minors and sending two images of child pornography.

A search of his computer revealed 526 unique images of child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less one day, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months in jail, with concurrent sentences on both counts, along with ancillary orders including probation, SOIRA registration, and a section 161 order restricting contact with minors and internet use.

The accused was charged with importing approximately 500 grams of cocaine into Canada contrary to section 6 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act upon her return from Colombia.

The substance was discovered in her luggage during a secondary examination at Pearson Airport.

The Crown alleged the accused knowingly imported the controlled substance.

The accused denied knowledge of the substance in her suitcase.

The court applied the W.D. analysis to assess witness credibility and found that while the Crown's circumstantial evidence was considerable, the accused's testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding her knowledge of the substance.

The court acquitted the accused.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The offences occurred on July 18, 2012 at his workplace and September 11, 2012 at his residence.

A forensic psychiatric assessment revealed the accused had pedohebephilia and was assessed as low risk for hands-on sexual offending but low-moderate risk for further child pornography offending.

The court imposed an 18-month concurrent jail sentence, three years probation with strict conditions including prohibition on contact with minors, a lifetime s. 161 prohibition order, lifetime weapons prohibition, lifetime SOIRA registration, and a primary DNA order.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and general deterrence in sentencing for child pornography offences.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and breach of probation.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on eyewitness testimony that the accused was positioned on top of an unconscious woman in a park, DNA evidence showing the complainant's DNA on the accused's penis, and statements allegedly made by the accused.

The accused testified that his contact with the complainant was innocent and that her DNA came to be on his penis through a prank involving a tissue.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the eyewitness evidence, the accused's incriminating statements, and the DNA evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had intercourse with the unconscious complainant.

The accused pleaded guilty to importing approximately 959 grams of cocaine into Canada, contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The sentencing court was required to balance the extremely serious nature of cocaine importation with the unique circumstances of the Aboriginal offender, including his traumatic childhood marked by parental alcoholism and violence, his lifelong struggle with substance abuse, and his limited connection to his Aboriginal heritage.

The court applied the principles established in Gladue and Ipeelee, recognizing that while the offence was serious, the offender's level of culpability was sufficiently diminished by his Aboriginal background and circumstances to justify a sentence below the ordinary range of three to five years imprisonment.