Y. Rahamim

The prosecution alleged that a travel‑membership company and its two directors committed numerous offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 relating to timeshare and membership contracts sold through high‑pressure sales presentations.

The court found the corporate defendant repeatedly failed to provide contracts containing mandatory statutory information, misrepresented cancellation rights, and refused refunds after consumers attempted to exercise statutory cancellation rights.

The court applied strict‑liability principles for regulatory offences and assessed party liability under aiding‑and‑abetting doctrines.

The directors were convicted on many improper‑contract and unfair‑practice counts because, as officers and directing minds of the corporation, they knew or ought to have known that the contracts were deficient and misleading.

However, they were acquitted on many failure‑to‑refund counts where the Crown failed to prove their direct involvement or knowledge of the refusal to refund.

The offender was sentenced for his role in a violent nighttime robbery of two victims in a public park.

The offender and his co-accused used an imitation firearm and a cleaver-like knife to threaten the victims, who were also subjected to gratuitous physical violence including being pistol-whipped, kicked, and punched.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the unprovoked violence and the offender's prior record against his rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years' incarceration, less 15 months of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a further 33 months to serve.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child relative.

The offences occurred repeatedly over approximately one to one and a half years and involved sexual touching between the accused and a child victim in a familial setting, constituting a breach of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim’s young age, the repeated nature of the conduct, and significant psychological harm reflected in a victim impact statement, as well as mitigating factors including the offender’s lack of criminal record and stable employment history.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in accordance with Criminal Code sentencing principles, the court imposed a custodial sentence below the Crown’s requested penitentiary range but above the defence’s proposed range.