Celine Harrington

The applicant, Awso Peshdary, facing terrorism charges, brought applications under s. 7 of the Charter and s. 38.14 of the Canada Evidence Act, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence due to the destruction of notes by a key Crown witness (A.M.), a former CSIS human source.

As part of these applications, Peshdary sought disclosure of various CSIS documents, including policies on human source handling, drafts of an affidavit from a CSIS employee ('John'), and materials related to A.M.'s handler.

The court granted disclosure for CSIS policies related to human source safety and note-taking, finding them relevant to the Charter application concerning the right to make full answer and defence.

However, it denied disclosure for draft affidavits and handler-related materials, citing litigation privilege and lack of likely relevance, or prior Federal Court rulings on privilege.

The applicant sought an order to excise information obtained through a Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act authorization, which was subsequently used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to secure a Criminal Code authorization for intercepting private communications.

The applicant alleged infringements of Charter s. 8 rights and the right to full answer and defence.

The court determined that the CSIS Act warrant met the minimum criteria for a lawful search, and the information derived from it did not violate s. 8.

Furthermore, the applicant's right to full answer and defence was not denied, as substantial disclosure of source documents related to the CSIS Act warrant had been obtained through prior third-party records applications.

Consequently, the application to excise the information was denied.

The applicant, Awso Peshdary, sought disclosure of source documents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) related to a 2012 CSIS Act warrant, renewing a previous request based on an alleged material change in circumstances following a Federal Court decision upholding the warrant.

CSIS and the Federal Crown opposed, arguing that the validity of the warrant had been decided by the Federal Court, precluding further challenge, and that no material change justified revisiting the prior disclosure denial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the renewed request constituted a collateral attack and an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate the warrant's validity in a different forum after a final determination by the Federal Court.

The three accused, Ashton Larmond, Carlos Larmond, and Suliman Mohamed, pleaded guilty to various terrorism-related offences and other charges.

Ashton Larmond pleaded guilty to knowingly instructing persons to enhance terrorist activity, Carlos Larmond to attempting to leave Canada for terrorist activity, and Suliman Mohamed to conspiring to enhance a terrorist group's ability.

The Larmond brothers also pleaded guilty to offences committed in custody, including threats to correctional officers and inmates, and unlawful communication.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions, emphasizing the gravity of "home grown" terrorism and the importance of denunciation and deterrence.

Following jury convictions for conspiracy to facilitate a terrorist activity and facilitating a terrorist activity, the court conducted a Gardiner hearing to determine disputed facts relevant to sentencing.

Applying s. 724 of the Criminal Code and the principles in R. v. Gardiner, the judge determined which aggravating facts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and which alleged mitigating facts were established on a balance of probabilities.

The court found that the accused supported violent jihadist causes, assisted associates involved in terrorist activity, provided funds intended for foreign terrorists to purchase weapons and grenades, and participated in recruiting others into the group.

The court also addressed possession of explosive components but concluded that the purpose of that possession was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the jury’s acquittal on the explosives charge.

The decision sets out factual findings to guide the subsequent sentencing determination.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing explosive materials for the purpose of endangering life or causing serious property damage in a terrorism context.

The court emphasized the gravity of terrorism-related offences under the Criminal Code and the serious threat posed to public safety.

After considering the joint submission of counsel and the circumstances of the offence, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 24 years with credit for pre-sentence custody at a rate of 1.5 to 1, totaling six years of credit.

The court ordered that the accused serve a further 18 years and imposed a delayed parole eligibility period pursuant to s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code.

Additional ancillary orders included a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in crack cocaine after selling multiple quantities to an undercover officer over several weeks.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 30 to 36 months given the offender’s prior record for similar offences, while the defence sought a conditional sentence based on rehabilitation, family responsibilities, and the needs of a child with significant care requirements.

The court acknowledged the serious aggravating factors, including repeated trafficking and prior convictions, but also recognized substantial mitigating circumstances including genuine rehabilitation, stable employment, family dependency, and a guilty plea.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the objectives in ss. 718 and 718.1 of the Criminal Code, the court concluded that a sentence under two years was appropriate.

A conditional sentence of two years less one day with strict house arrest conditions, followed by three years of probation, was imposed.