Dihim Emami

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking his roommate multiple times with a cricket bat during an alcohol-fuelled altercation.

The victim died from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court considered the accused's cognitive impairment, health issues, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody as mitigating factors, while noting the sustained nature of the assault and the vulnerability of the victim as aggravating.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment, reduced to 33 months net after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

This is a sentencing decision for Chandramattie Dave and Ravindra Dave, who pleaded guilty to trading in securities while prohibited by an Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) order, contrary to s. 122(1)(c) of the Securities Act.

Both defendants were subject to market bans.

The OSC sought a fine and probation, while the defendants sought a suspended sentence and probation.

The court considered the defendants' impecunious state, poor health, diminished moral blameworthiness due to reliance on incorrect legal advice, lack of investor loss, and guilty pleas.

Applying regulatory sentencing principles, the court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation for each defendant, including the forfeiture of $2,250 to the OSC, but declined to impose a fine due to the defendants' inability to pay.

The offender pleaded guilty to contravening Ontario Securities law by acting as a general manager of a transfer agency while subject to a prohibition order.

The Crown sought a fine and probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence and probation.

The court found that the offender's conduct was a mistake of law, openly disclosed, and resulted in no financial loss to anyone.

Considering the offender's severe financial hardship, remorse, and a suicide attempt upon learning of the investigation, the court applied the principles of proportionality and restraint, concluding that a fine would be unfit.

A suspended sentence with two years of probation was imposed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit two accused to stand trial for second degree murder in the death of Trey Theriault, who sustained eight stab wounds during an altercation.

The accused admitted presence and participation in a physical fight but argued insufficient evidence of intent to kill.

The court applied the Sheppard/Arcuri test for committal, examining whether a reasonable jury could infer guilt from the evidence.

The court found sufficient evidence on all essential elements of second degree murder: causation (stab wounds to vital organs), unlawful act (armed assault without justification), and intent (inferred from the nature and number of wounds).

Both accused were committed to stand trial.

A pharmacist who owned and operated a pharmacy pleaded guilty to breach of trust contrary to the Criminal Code.

He admitted to submitting billings to the Ontario Drug Benefits Program for medications without proof of dispensation, receiving benefits knowing the claims could not be substantiated.

The audit revealed discrepancies in drug quantities billed versus purchased, with unsubstantiated claims totalling $155,466, though actual loss recovered was $46,506.04.

The defendant faced suspension of billing privileges and termination of his subscription agreement.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and specific conditions, considering the defendant's exemplary personal antecedents, community contributions, full restitution, genuine remorse, and the aberrant nature of the conduct.

During a criminal trial for multiple convenience store robberies, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict after the close of the Crown’s case regarding two of the alleged robberies.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to surveillance footage and clothing similar to items worn by a robber.

The court applied the directed verdict test from R. v. Monteleone and the circumstantial evidence principles from R. v. Arcuri.

The judge held that the similarities in clothing and general appearance were too generic and common to support a reasonable inference that the accused was the perpetrator.

Directed verdicts of not guilty were entered on the two counts.

The accused brought an application to stay the proceeding pursuant to Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for an alleged breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time under Section 11(b) of the Charter.

The charge was laid on October 26, 2010, and the trial date was set for March 28, 2012, representing a delay of approximately 17 months.

The court analyzed the delay using the framework established in R. v. Morin, considering the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice.

The court found that the operative delay was 8 months (6 months institutional delay plus 2 months Crown delay), which fell within the acceptable guideline of 8-10 months.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon following an altercation with the complainant on the campus of the University of Toronto.

The Crown alleged that during a physical struggle, the accused used a baton-like instrument to assault and injure the complainant.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed self-defence.

The trial judge found the accused guilty, determining that the accused was the aggressor both in class and during the subsequent physical altercation, and that when challenged during the fight, the accused resorted to the use of a blunt instrument and excessive force.

The court rejected the accused's self-defence claim as disproportionate and not available under the Criminal Code.

The accused applied to strike his guilty plea to a charge of threatening death, arguing that it was not informed, voluntary, or unequivocal due to his mental state, restrictive bail conditions, and a misunderstanding of the plea bargain.

The court found that the accused understood the legal consequences of his plea, was not coerced, and unequivocally admitted the essential facts.

The court concluded that the accused made a tactical decision to plead guilty and only sought to withdraw it upon realizing he might receive a harsher sentence than anticipated.

The application was dismissed.