M. Birsan

This sentencing judgment addresses multiple counts of assault by Alexandru Ciobanu against his wife and 13-year-old son, highlighting the serious nature of intimate partner violence and child abuse.

The court emphasizes aggravating factors including coercive control, threats to life, and the impact on vulnerable victims, including children exposed to violence.

Despite the offender's difficult background and refugee status, the court imposes a custodial sentence reflecting the gravity of the offences, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and the protection of victims.

The decision also discusses the limited applicability of conditional sentences in cases of personal violence and the importance of proportionality in sentencing.

The accused, Ali Alavi, pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged he sexually assaulted the complainant, S.A., at his residence after drugging her, rendering her incapacitated for consent in the master bedroom, and then forcing non-consensual vaginal intercourse in a second bedroom.

The defence contended the allegations were fabricated or based on false memories.

The court found the complainant was drugged and incapable of consenting in the master bedroom, and that she did not consent to sexual activity in the second bedroom.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

This is a sentencing decision for an individual who pleaded guilty to three counts of unprovoked assault on strangers in downtown Toronto.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the unprovoked nature of the attacks, the violation of release terms, the prevalence of stranger attacks in Toronto, and the defendant's extensive criminal record with a history of violence and non-compliance.

Mitigating factors were minimal, primarily the defendant's guilty plea.

Despite the defendant's self-reported schizophrenia and reluctance to seek treatment, the court emphasized deterrence, denunciation, and separation from society.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months, with 5 months of additional custody after accounting for pre-trial custody, followed by a 3-year probation order with specific conditions aimed at public safety and monitoring.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay impaired driving and over 80 charges against the respondent.

The trial judge found a s. 8 Charter breach due to intrusive cell camera monitoring of the respondent using the toilet, despite prior judicial commentary on the issue.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's finding of a s. 8 breach and the decision to exclude evidence and stay the charges, emphasizing the seriousness of the state misconduct and the lack of remedial action by the police detachment.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding the legal limit.

He challenged the admissibility of evidence, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 9 (arbitrary detention/overholding) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found no arbitrary detention, but did find a minor breach of the right to counsel due to an 11-minute delay in providing the approved screening device demand.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the minor nature of the breach, minimal impact on the accused's interests, and strong societal interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The defendant was found guilty.