L. Ben-Eliezer

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference involving his 14-year-old biological daughter.

The offences occurred over several months and involved inappropriate touching.

The court considered the grave breach of trust as a significant aggravating factor, balanced against the mitigating factor of the guilty plea which spared the victim from testifying.

The accused was sentenced to 357 days in custody (accounting for pre-sentence custody), followed by three years of probation, and various ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and a section 161 order.

The applicant sought to lift a stay on his motion to change a final order.

The stay had been imposed due to his failure to comply with previous court orders, specifically the payment of costs.

The court found the applicant in breach of the previous order, as costs cannot be collected as support by the Family Responsibility Office without an explicit court order.

The court varied the previous order, lifting the stay conditionally upon the applicant paying $172,156.44 in accumulated costs from Ontario and foreign jurisdictions, and explicitly ordered these costs to be enforceable as support.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for failing to provide a breath sample, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The alleged deficiencies were counsel’s abandonment of a Charter s. 11(b) delay application and the failure to call medical expert evidence supporting the defence that anxiety prevented the appellant from providing a breath sample.

Applying the test from R. v. G.D.B., the court held the appellant failed to establish either unreasonable professional conduct or resulting prejudice.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant’s factual account, meaning any expert opinion based on that account would not have altered the outcome.

The court dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay of the driving prohibition.

The defendants, Mohammad Mehdi Toozhy and Sameen Siddiqi, applied for directed verdicts of acquittal on charges relating to three bank loans obtained under the federal small business financing program.

The Crown alleged the defendants used false invoices to obtain loans for equipment that was never purchased, and instead diverted the funds to themselves and others.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict and found that there was some evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict each defendant on each charge.

The applications for directed verdicts were dismissed.