Gabriel Ho

Aziz Karem Hocaoglu was found guilty of sexual assault involving violent vaginal penetration and whipping, which left visible injuries on the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violence and the relationship between the accused and the victim, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's lack of criminal record, work ethic, and community support.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for serious sexual assaults.

A sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment was imposed, along with a DNA databanking order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation (2x) following an incident on August 9, 2018, in which the victim was slashed across the face with a knife outside a men's shelter.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The Crown presented direct evidence from the victim, extensive video surveillance evidence, DNA evidence linking the accused to clothing found at the scene, DNA evidence of the victim on a knife found during the accused's arrest, and non-expert recognition evidence from police officers.

The defence conceded the accused was present at the scene but argued an alternative suspect may have committed the assault.

The court found the evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on all counts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited by court order.

The offences occurred when the defendant, on bail with weapons prohibitions and a curfew, was found in a downtown Toronto bar with a loaded .45 calibre semi-automatic handgun.

Upon arrest, the defendant struggled with police and moved his hands toward the weapon.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 2.5 years with credit for pre-trial detention and house arrest.

The defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 1.5 years after applying credit for 300 days of pre-trial custody and 65 days of house arrest, finding the conduct constituted truly criminal conduct posing a real and immediate danger to the public.

The defendants, a mother and daughter who were managers at a seafood retailer, were charged with Theft Over $5000 and Fraud Over $5000 for allegedly skimming money from the cash register between February 1, 2013, and October 8, 2013.

The Crown presented evidence of significant financial losses, surveillance camera summaries showing frequent instances of sales not being punched into the cash register, and testimony from employees regarding suspicious cash handling practices.

The defendants did not testify.

The court found that while the defendants' actions created significant suspicion, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court noted inconsistencies in witness testimony, the absence of direct video evidence of money being taken, and the fact that other employees also had access to cash and failed to punch in sales.

Both defendants were acquitted on both counts.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and possession of a firearm while prohibited under s. 117.01.

Police executing a search warrant discovered a loaded .40 calibre handgun hidden in the accused’s residence while he was subject to a weapons prohibition order.

The court emphasized the serious public safety risks posed by illegal handgun possession and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

After granting enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody under s. 719(3.1), the court imposed a global sentence reflecting three years for the firearm offence and a consecutive six months for breach of the prohibition order.

Probation and ancillary orders, including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order, were also imposed.

The accused sought leave to cross‑examine the police affiant who swore the Information to Obtain supporting a search warrant for an apartment where a loaded prohibited handgun was allegedly seized.

The proposed cross‑examination targeted details of the confidential informant’s information, the informant’s reliability, allegations of drug trafficking, corroboration details, and investigative steps taken after an earlier warrant refusal.

The court applied the Garofoli threshold and held that the accused failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the proposed questioning would assist in undermining the basis for the warrant.

Many of the proposed questions risked revealing confidential informant identity and were barred by near‑absolute informer privilege.

Leave to cross‑examine the affiant was therefore denied.

The accused, detained pending a jury trial on firearms-related charges, applied to sit at counsel table instead of the prisoner’s dock during trial.

The court reviewed conflicting authorities on whether an accused should be permitted to sit with counsel, noting the issue falls within the trial judge’s discretion balancing fair trial interests and courtroom security.

Evidence showed the accused had a criminal record including violence toward police, a history of breaching court orders, and documentation of an attempted escape from custody.

Security testimony indicated that seating the accused at counsel table would create monitoring difficulties and require additional security resources given the courtroom layout.

The court held that these security concerns and practical considerations outweighed any potential prejudice and ordered that the accused remain in the prisoner’s dock.

The defendant was charged with Driving Impaired and Driving Over 80 following observations of erratic driving and a roadside stop.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest, arguing a violation of section 9 Charter rights (arbitrary detention) leading to an unlawful search under section 8.

The court found the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant, despite having grounds to suspect impairment warranting a roadside screening test.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was acquitted on both charges.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the validity of the roadside screening device demand on Charter grounds, arguing that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion that she had alcohol in her body.

The court found that the officer had observed the defendant's vehicle during a RIDE spot check, smelled alcohol, and heard the defendant speak before making the demand.

The court accepted the officer's testimony that he smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath and found that his suspicion was both subjective and objectively reasonable.

The Charter motion was dismissed and the defendant was found guilty.