Kelly Gates

In this addendum to a prior decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario finalized the terms of probation for the appellant, Ahmed Marzouk, after having allowed his sentence appeal.

The court varied the sentence to two years less a day followed by a one-year probation, and subsequently ordered that the probation terms include those agreed to by counsel plus 60 hours of community service.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and a three-year sentence.

The appeal challenged the reasonableness of identity evidence, the admissibility of rebuttal evidence, and the rejection of alibi evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the identity evidence sufficient and the rebuttal evidence properly admitted.

However, the court found the trial judge erred in principle by over-emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for a youthful first offender with strong rehabilitative prospects.

Consequently, the sentence was varied from three years to two years less a day, followed by one year of probation.

A motion to file fresh evidence was dismissed as it merely confirmed existing evidence of rehabilitative prospects.

The accused, charged with terrorism offences for allegedly attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State, appeared for a mandatory detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court conducted a bail hearing 'from the ground up'.

The court found that the Crown's case was not overwhelmingly strong, as there was no direct evidence the accused intended to enhance the terrorist group's ability to carry out terrorist activities, nor any history of violence.

The court concluded that the accused's detention was not justified under the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds, and ordered her release on a $100,000 surety bail with strict conditions, including a ban on social media and internet monitoring.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, and use of a firearm while committing an indictable offence.

The charges arose from an altercation in which the appellant shot one of two men who approached him and his friends.

The trial judge found the appellant shot deliberately and rejected claims of accident and self-defence.

On appeal, the primary issue was whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the self-defence claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings that the danger to the appellant had passed and that the victim posed no danger.

The defendants were convicted after trial of assault with weapons for attacking the victim with knives in a parking lot on July 31, 2016.

The victim sustained a significant cut to his left arm requiring ten staples to close, leaving a permanent scar.

The court found both defendants equally culpable despite being unable to determine which defendant inflicted the wound.

The sentencing judge rejected both a suspended sentence and a conditional sentence, imposing four months custody followed by two years probation with strict conditions including anger management, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.