Hate crime

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm arising from a hate-motivated attack on a subway passenger based on sexual orientation.

The attack was brutal, involving multiple punches and stomping on the victim's face, resulting in serious injuries including concussion and facial fractures.

The offender has an extensive criminal history including prior convictions for aggravated assault, dangerous driving, and sexual assault.

The offender has been in custody for over 10 years (2,615 days credited at 1.5:1).

The court sentenced the offender to three years and six months imprisonment, with one day additional to time served, reflecting a reduction from the otherwise appropriate four-year sentence due to harsh presentence custody conditions including prolonged lockdowns and triple bunking.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Tracey VanHartsKamp, who pled guilty to assault and uttering death threats motivated by racial bias against a vulnerable immigrant woman and her child on public transit.

The court carefully balances aggravating factors including hate motivation, the presence of a child victim, and the public transit context, with mitigating factors rooted in the offender’s Indigenous background, intergenerational trauma, FASD diagnosis, and progress on a healing path.

The judge imposes a conditional sentence order to allow continued access to culturally appropriate rehabilitation programs, emphasizing restorative justice principles in sentencing Indigenous offenders.

This sentencing decision addresses a hate-motivated assault involving spitting and hateful Nazi-related language and gestures directed at Jewish victims.

The court found the offender guilty of assault and breach of probation, emphasizing the aggravating factor of hate motivation under section 718.2(a)(1) of the Criminal Code.

The decision carefully considers victim and community impact statements, the offender’s prior criminal record, mental health background, and lack of remorse.

The court imposed a 12-month jail sentence followed by two years probation, along with DNA and s.110 orders, underscoring the importance of denunciation and general deterrence in hate crime sentencing.

This sentencing decision addresses the conviction of David Grant for two counts of uttering death threats and one count of causing a disturbance on a TTC bus, motivated by bias against young Muslim women.

The court found the offences were hate-motivated, emphasizing the aggravating factors of targeting vulnerable victims and the significant emotional harm caused.

The judge imposed a conditional sentence order with house arrest and probation, balancing the offender’s rehabilitative prospects and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The decision highlights the importance of sentencing that reflects societal values against hate crimes and the rise of such offences in recent years.

The offender was convicted by a jury of four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder after driving his truck into a Muslim family in London, Ontario.

The sentencing judge found that the murders constituted terrorist activity under the Criminal Code, as they were motivated by white nationalist ideology and intended to intimidate the Muslim community.

The offender was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years for each murder, and a concurrent life sentence for the attempted murder, reflecting the extreme brutality and terrorist nature of the attack.

This ruling addresses the challenge for cause process in a high-profile criminal trial.

It outlines principles from R. v. Chouhan regarding screening for bias, balancing fair trial rights with juror privacy.

The court determined how to screen for potential juror bias related to the disturbing nature of the allegations, bias against those holding extremist views, and the impact of pre-trial publicity, including statements by public officials and participation in commemorative events.

The judge proposed specific questions for the challenge for cause.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing Janis and Adem Corhamzic, who were found guilty of aggravated assault and assault.

The incident involved a brutal, hate-motivated attack on two victims, Mohammad Abu Marzouk and Fuat Yucel, in front of their families.

Mr. Abu Marzouk suffered severe traumatic brain injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the anti-Arab hate motivation, the severe and lasting impact on the victims and their families, and the sustained violence, particularly the kicking of an unconscious victim.

Mitigating factors included the offenders' lack of prior criminal records, expressions of remorse, stable employment, and family support.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation for hate-motivated crimes while also applying the principle of restraint for first-time offenders.

Kevin William Gillard pleaded guilty to assault, which was accompanied by hateful Islamophobic and racist language, and gendered targeting of a Muslim woman.

The victim sustained physical injuries and significant psychological impact.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the hate motivation under s. 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, and mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and the offender's mental health issues.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, but the court determined that denunciation and general deterrence, particularly given the hate-motivated violence, precluded a discharge.

Gillard was sentenced to a suspended sentence with two years of probation, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

Michael Hennesy pleaded guilty to assault following a racist verbal and physical attack on a Chinese student on a bus during the early pandemic.

The victim experienced significant emotional distress.

The court considered Hennesy's tragic personal history, including childhood trauma, addiction, and a lack of prior criminal record, as mitigating factors.

However, the racist nature of the assault and its broader societal impact were deemed aggravating.

The judge imposed a four-month conditional sentence of imprisonment, followed by one year of probation, emphasizing the need to denounce racist conduct despite the offender's personal circumstances.

This is a sentencing decision for two young men who pleaded guilty to willfully promoting hatred against Jewish and Black people, contrary to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, by posting hateful and dehumanizing posters in public places.

The Crown sought imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the hate speech and its community impact, and mitigating factors, such as the offenders' youth, lack of prior record, guilty pleas, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

Ultimately, the court imposed a conditional sentence of imprisonment for six months, to be served in the community with strict conditions including home confinement, followed by two years of probation with community service and mandatory counselling, rejecting a conditional discharge or suspended sentence as insufficient.

The accused was convicted of uttering threats and mischief for making a bomb threat to the London Abused Women's Centre.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of 4-6 months plus 36 months probation, arguing the offence was a hate crime targeting vulnerable women.

The accused sought an absolute discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 36 months probation, finding that while the offence was serious and required denunciation, the accused's 60+ year crime-free history, lack of clear hate motivation, and possible mental health issues warranted a non-custodial sentence.

A DNA order and 10-year firearms prohibition were also imposed.

The accused, Eric Brazau, brought an application to strike his guilty pleas to one count of causing a disturbance, one count of breach of probation, and one count of breach of recognizance.

Brazau argued that the Crown over-charged him, that new evidence undermined the hate crime allegations (which were not part of the plea but were aggravating factors), and that the facts did not make out the offence of causing a disturbance.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the plea was voluntary and unequivocal, the Crown did not engage in undue oppression, and the facts supported the mens rea for causing a disturbance, distinguishing between motive and intention.

The court also affirmed the Crown's ability to rely on Brazau's comments as aggravating factors under s. 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.