H. Azimi

The 71-year-old offender was convicted of sexual exploitation for performing oral sex on a 15-year-old male who lived with him in 1988.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was legally available under s. 11(i) of the Charter, as there was no mandatory minimum at the time of the offence.

Considering the offender's advanced age, deteriorating health due to Parkinson's disease, genuine remorse, and low risk to reoffend, the court concluded that a conditional sentence would meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by one year of probation.

The applicant, charged with several driving and weapons offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 28 months and 10 days, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for matters in the Superior Court of Justice.

The court found that the defence did not take meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings, nor did the case take markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was tried on historic counts of sexual exploitation and sexual assault arising from sexual activity with a 15-year-old boy in the late 1980s.

The court held that, considering the age gap, the evolution of the relationship, the accused's role as an adult mentor and provider, and the boy's residence in the accused's home, the accused occupied a position of trust that became a relationship of dependency, establishing sexual exploitation under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.

On the sexual assault count, however, the court accepted the accused's evidence that the complainant initiated the sexual activity and found material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, leaving a reasonable doubt on subjective non-consent.

The court also held that coercive authority under s. 265(3)(d) was not proven and that s. 273.1(2)(c) did not apply because it was not yet in force during the charged period.

The four accused were charged with aggravated assault following an altercation with another inmate at a correctional centre.

The incident began as a consensual fight between one accused and the victim, but moved behind a partition out of view of surveillance cameras, where the victim sustained severe, life-threatening head injuries.

The Crown relied on surveillance video and the testimony of another inmate, but did not call the victim or other eyewitnesses.

The court found the inmate witness unreliable and the video insufficient to identify two of the accused.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove who inflicted the injuries or that there was a common intention to assault the victim.

All four accused were found not guilty.