M. Fisico

The defendants were convicted of recklessly discharging a restricted firearm, and one defendant was additionally convicted of drug trafficking and other firearm offences.

The court determined that the five-year mandatory minimum penalty applied to the discharge offence.

After considering aggravating factors, mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, and the principle of totality, the court sentenced Mr. Jama to five years (reduced to four years, three months, and three weeks after credit) and Mr. Farah to a total of six years and 10.5 months (reduced to two years less a day after credit, plus probation).

The five defendants were charged with numerous offences including drug trafficking, firearms possession, discharging a firearm, and criminal organization offences arising from a lengthy police investigation known as Project Patton.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications.

The court found several defendants guilty of various drug trafficking and firearms possession charges, as well as discharging a firearm in relation to a March 24, 2018 shooting.

However, the court acquitted the defendants of attempted murder, the April 30, 2018 shooting, and the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence of structure to constitute a criminal organization and reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the shooter in the April incident.

The appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous driving under s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, arguing that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient and improperly conflated the actus reus and mens rea requirements.

The court reviewed the trial reasons in the context of the submissions made and concluded that the trial judge had adequately addressed both elements of the offence, even though the analysis was not clearly demarcated.

The court held that the trial judge’s findings established the actus reus and separately explained why the driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care required to establish mens rea.

The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to resolve an alleged inconsistency regarding whether a civilian witness observed the police vehicle with lights and siren activated.

The court found the discrepancy immaterial and not necessary to resolve for the purposes of determining guilt.