Immigration consequences

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Akashkumar Narendrakumar Khant, who pleaded guilty to attempted commission of an indecent act contrary to section 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, following a police sting operation targeting individuals seeking sexual services from minors.

The Crown sought 90 days custody, while the Defence proposed a conditional discharge with probation and house arrest.

The Court considered extensive psychological assessments, mitigating factors including Khant’s remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and severe immigration and professional consequences of a conviction.

The Court distinguished this case from more serious precedents, noting evidentiary weaknesses and the incomplete nature of the offence.

Ultimately, the Court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, including 3 months house arrest, emphasizing proportionality, rehabilitation, and the avoidance of disproportionate collateral consequences.

The appellant, Errol Francis, appealed the sentence imposed for sexual assault.

The only issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred by not considering that a conditional sentence order would have preserved the appellant’s right to appeal under s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal found that, although defence counsel misstated the law, the sentencing judge’s reasons made clear that a conditional sentence would have been unfit given the seriousness of the case.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The court sentenced Zongxiu Jiang to 18 months' incarceration for cultivating cannabis in a non-dwelling house, contrary to s. 12(6)(a) of the Cannabis Act.

The decision reviews the facts, the parties' positions, sentencing principles, and the range of sentences for large-scale cannabis operations.

The court found that, despite mitigating factors such as a guilty plea and family hardship, the gravity and scale of the commercial operation, and Jiang's role as principal, required a custodial sentence.

The court declined to impose a conditional sentence, emphasizing the paramount importance of deterrence and denunciation in such cases, and held that collateral immigration consequences could not justify a more lenient sentence.

The court sentenced Arthur Kotula for two counts of dangerous operation causing death and two counts of dangerous operation causing bodily harm, following a fatal multi-vehicle collision.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including Kotula’s lack of prior record, his immigration status, and the impact on the victims’ families.

The court imposed a global sentence of six and a half years, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 15-year driving prohibition, and a weapons prohibition.

The decision discusses the sentencing range for dangerous driving offences and the effect of recent legislative amendments.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the Crown's appeal from an absolute discharge imposed on Jennel Christie for assault causing bodily harm.

The Court found the sentence demonstrably unfit, given the seriousness of the offence, the lack of consideration for public interest, and errors in the sentencing judge’s reasoning regarding employment and immigration consequences.

The Court substituted a nine-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, followed by one year of probation.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Sevan Halabi to 10 months imprisonment followed by two years probation for sexual assault committed while working as an Uber driver.

The offender forcibly kissed and touched the victim in a deserted parking lot, breaching the trust inherent in the private transportation industry.

The court considered the offender’s immigration status, family circumstances, and lack of prior record but emphasized that the sentence must denounce and deter such conduct.

The decision carefully balances sentencing principles with the offender’s potential immigration consequences, rejecting a reduced sentence solely to avoid deportation.

This decision addresses a constitutional challenge to section 9(5)(a)(i) of the Cannabis Act, which prohibits discharges for indictable offences of possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution.

The court upholds the constitutionality of the provision, finding that the infringement on liberty is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad, does not impose a grossly disproportionate sentence, and does not create a distinction based on race in its impact.

The court sentences the accused, Rene Smith, to a fine of $7,500 and makes several ancillary orders.

The court sentenced Tahir Ul-Haq for trafficking fentanyl, after he sold what he believed to be cocaine to a friend, resulting in one death and one serious injury.

The court found that Mr. Ul-Haq was not a commercial trafficker, did not know the substance was fentanyl, and sold it as a favour without profit.

The sentence imposed was a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by probation, with ancillary orders.

The decision carefully weighs aggravating and mitigating factors, including the tragic consequences, Mr. Ul-Haq’s personal circumstances, and the collateral immigration consequences of conviction.

The court sentenced A.S. to three years and six months' imprisonment for sexual assault of a 16-year-old, following a judge-alone trial.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence and offender, victim impact, and the applicable sentencing principles, including proportionality, parity, and restraint.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of immigration consequences, and the appropriateness of conditional sentences or discharges.

The court found that the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility warranted a custodial sentence within the range of three to five years, as established by appellate authority, and imposed ancillary orders including a SOIRA order, DNA order, weapons prohibition, and a no-contact order.

The appellant, Dailean John, appealed his conviction for unlawful confinement and his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding him an active participant rather than a mere bystander.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude he played a culpable role given the evidence of the victim's confinement in his apartment and his awareness and control over her movements.

The appellant also sought to appeal his sentence, arguing it was unfit due to its impact on his Permanent Resident status and potential deportation.

The Court granted leave to appeal sentence but dismissed the appeal, holding that reducing the sentence to avoid deportation would result in an unfit sentence given the seriousness and aggravating factors of the offence.

The defendants pleaded guilty to an offence under s. 12(6) of the Cannabis Act after police discovered a large-scale illegal cannabis grow operation.

The Crown sought conditional sentences of imprisonment, while the defence argued for conditional discharges and probation, emphasizing the defendants' limited role as labourers, lack of prior criminal records, and significant potential immigration consequences.

The court considered the large size of the operation as an aggravating factor but found the defendants' moral culpability to be low.

Balancing the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and the least restrictive sanctions, alongside the severe collateral immigration consequences (potential deportation), the court determined that conditional discharges were appropriate and not contrary to the public interest.

The defendant, Ghassan Kullab, a Lyft driver, was found guilty of sexual assault.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability and the breach of trust by Kullab as a ride-share driver.

Mitigating factors included his lack of criminal record and mental health issues.

The court also addressed potential collateral immigration consequences, noting that a sentence of six months or more would remove his appeal rights for deportation.

After reviewing similar cases, the court imposed a sentence of six months less a day in institutional custody, followed by two years probation and other ancillary orders, concluding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate given the breach of trust.

The offender, Shane Springer, was sentenced following a trial where he was found to have caused significant head injuries to the complainant with a bag.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment and 24 months probation, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as aggravating factors (unprovoked attack, weapon use, lack of remorse, ongoing harm to victim) and mitigating factors (first offender, refugee claimant status, community contributions, positive pre-sentence report).

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the severity of the assault and lack of remorse, imposing six months imprisonment and two years probation, noting the potential for deportation.

Following a trial, the accused, Arif Ali Versi, was found guilty of five counts of fraud over $5000, resulting in total losses of $338,400 to five victims through a real estate scheme.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 to 4 years and ancillary orders, including a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defence sought a conditional sentence and probation.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the deliberate and sophisticated nature of the fraud, significant losses, multiple victims, and the accused's prior fraud convictions and failure to pay restitution.

Mitigating factors included family support and positive steps taken since arrest.

The court determined that a penitentiary term was required, imposing a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, along with a restitution order for $338,400 and a fine in lieu of forfeiture for the same amount.

Ancillary orders included a no-contact order with victims and a DNA order.

The appellant, convicted of aggravated assault on his intimate partner and sentenced to seven years imprisonment, appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence, including video footage, overwhelming and the defence of necessity lacking an air of reality.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court found the sentence fit given the egregious nature of the assault, despite the appellant's arguments regarding mitigating factors.

The court did, however, correct errors in the imposition of weapons prohibition orders under the Criminal Code.

The appellant, Chance Kabasele, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and forcible confinement, and his sentence.

He raised three grounds: inconsistent verdicts and insufficient evidence, violation of his Charter s. 11(b) right to a timely trial, and an unfit sentence due to immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding the verdicts were not inconsistent as they related to distinct acts, the Charter delay was primarily attributable to the appellant, and the sentence was fit, with immigration consequences not justifying an artificial reduction.

The appellant, Helder Sousa, appealed a 10-year sentence for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal considered three grounds: failure to consider potential immigration consequences, treating denial of the offence and lack of remorse as aggravating, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The court dismissed the first two grounds, affirming that immigration consequences are discretionary and denial of the offence relates to rehabilitation, not aggravation.

However, the court found the 10-year sentence demonstrably unfit, particularly for a first offender, despite the egregious nature of the crime.

Applying principles of parity, proportionality, and restraint, and comparing it to similar cases, the court reduced the sentence to eight years' imprisonment (seven years, eight and a half months after credit for presentence custody).

The appellant, convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm, appealed his conviction and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings on causation were supported by evidence and the verdict was reasonable.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the three-year custodial sentence and three-year driving prohibition, finding the trial judge properly considered mitigating factors and collateral immigration consequences.

The appellant, R.L.S., appealed a 9-month sentence for counseling and touching a child for a sexual purpose, seeking a reduced sentence to avoid deportation.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence proportionate given the high moral culpability, breach of trust, and victim's young age, affirming that immigration consequences do not justify an artificial sentence.

The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

However, the court varied the prohibition order to more narrowly define prohibited conduct, removing the broad "public park" restriction and refining internet/communication conditions.

The appellant, a permanent resident, appealed his convictions for drug and credit card offences, arguing his guilty pleas were uninformed due to erroneous advice from trial counsel regarding immigration consequences.

A prior deportation order had been stayed but was lifted following these convictions.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence, found that trial counsel had misadvised the appellant, leading to an uninformed plea and subjective prejudice.

The court emphasized the duty of defence counsel to advise on collateral immigration consequences.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.