Mohsin Yousuf

The accused, Miller Hiscock, was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse without a condom or to ejaculation inside her.

The court found that the complainant consented to the sexual acts and that there was no prior discussion or condition regarding condom use or the location of ejaculation.

The court found the accused's testimony credible and noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The court concluded that the sexual acts were consensual and the accidental ejaculation inside the complainant did not retroactively remove consent, leading to an acquittal.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and related offences after acting as the driver of a vehicle involved in a shooting.

The court found he did not have foreknowledge of the shooting but became aware of the firearm in the glove compartment during the five-minute drive before police intercepted the vehicle.

Weighing the gravity of firearm offences against the offender's strong rehabilitative prospects and limited moral culpability, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, Wasitt Izaz, was charged with nine firearms-related offences as the driver of a vehicle from which two occupants exited and committed a shooting.

The Crown sought to establish criminal responsibility based on party liability and constructive possession.

The court found the accused not guilty of the first six counts, which related to aiding the shooting and possession of one of the firearms (Glock 30), due to reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of the firearms and intent prior to the shooting.

However, the court found the accused guilty of counts 7, 8, and 9, related to the constructive possession of the second firearm (Glock 21) found in the glove compartment, concluding that he had knowledge and control of it after the shooting occurred.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Solomon Nnadede, who was found guilty of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The assaults occurred three times over nine months against a vulnerable 21-year-old homeless refugee claimant who was financially and spiritually dependent on the offender, a church pastor.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the breach of trust, the manipulative context, and the substantial impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, pro-social life, and efforts to support his family.

The court also addressed collateral immigration consequences, noting they cannot lead to a disproportionate sentence.

The Crown sought 8-9 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court sentenced the offender to 5 years in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition, DNA sample, Sex Offender Registry registration, and a no-contact order.

Mohammad Isaq Jahfari was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault (the latter stayed).

This decision outlines the sentencing reasons.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the offender's control over the vulnerable victim, escalation of intimacy, and grooming behaviour, as well as mitigating factors such as strong family support and a history as a productive member of society.

The court accepted the Crown and Defence's recommendation for a 178-day jail term (6 months minus 2 days) to avoid significant immigration consequences.

However, the court declined the defence's request for an exception to the s. 161 order that would allow unsupervised contact with family members under 16, citing the offender's lack of insight and the continued risk posed.

The defendant, Justine Watson, was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, DNA from a Presto card registered to the defendant found at the scene, and similarities in appearance and possessions.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable in parts but accepted the security video evidence.

The court admitted hearsay evidence regarding the Presto card's chain of custody due to necessity and threshold reliability.

Ultimately, the court found the cumulative circumstantial evidence compelling, excluding other reasonable alternatives, and entered a finding of guilt.

The accused, Mohammad Isaq Jahfari, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The complainant testified that the accused offered him a ride, then touched his thigh, kissed his head, forehead, cheek, and lips, and attempted to "groom" him.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and fabricated.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, rejecting the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent.

The court concluded that the touching was intentional, for a sexual purpose, and occurred in sexual circumstances, and that the accused's actions constituted grooming.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

Mohammad Jahfari was arrested and charged with sexual interference and sexual assault but was not brought to bail court within 24 hours, violating s. 503(1) of the Criminal Code and his Charter rights under ss. 7, 9, and 11(e).

He sought a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, exclusion of his statement and a sentence reduction.

The Crown conceded the Charter violations but opposed a stay.

The court found the police conduct to be an isolated incident, not warranting a stay or sentence reduction.

As a remedy for the Charter breaches, the court ordered the exclusion of the accused's statement to the police, finding a sufficient nexus between the breach and the evidence obtained.