Mohsin Yousuf

The young person pleaded guilty to second degree murder for his role in a planned and fatal stabbing.

The court considered the youth's chaotic upbringing, mental health diagnoses, and progress in pre-trial custody.

Applying the sentencing principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the court imposed the maximum youth sentence of seven years, apportioned as three years in secure intensive rehabilitative custody and four years under conditional supervision, declining to strictly deduct pre-sentence custody to ensure sufficient time for rehabilitation.

The accused was tried on one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference arising from historical allegations of intrafamilial child sexual abuse.

The case turned entirely on the complainant's credibility and reliability, including challenges based on chronology, delayed disclosure, memory suppression, and inconsistencies between trial testimony and police statements.

The court held that the complainant's frailties did not undermine her credibility on the core allegations and that common sense and human experience permitted assessment of her memory without expert evidence in the circumstances.

Findings of guilt were entered on both counts, subject to the trial judge's exclusion of one non-sexualized knee-bouncing incident and insufficient age-related proof for one touching incident on the sexual interference count.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and Crown sought a continuation of the detention disposition.

Despite recent stability in a high-support community residence, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of medication non-compliance, substance use, and sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The Board concluded that the current detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate to manage his risk and ensure ongoing psychiatric support.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of commercial break and enter, admitting to several other similar uncharged offences.

He had a lengthy criminal record of 26 prior break and enter convictions and struggled with schizophrenia and crack cocaine addiction.

The court found that his addiction and mental health issues did not significantly mitigate his moral blameworthiness, as the offences were driven by a desire for financial gain to support his habit.

Emphasizing general and specific deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 18 months' custody, followed by three years of probation, and ordered restitution.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused had previously been found unfit to stand trial on charges of robbery.

Based on the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to treatment-refractory schizophrenia, which causes disorganized thoughts and delusional beliefs that impair his ability to instruct counsel.

However, the Board concluded he is not permanently unfit, as his medication is still being optimized.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital, but expanded his community pass privileges to include the Greater Toronto Area for therapeutic purposes.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempted abduction.

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and resides in a supervised community farm placement.

Based on a joint submission and uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to chronic psychosis and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order at the hospital with privileges for supervised community living.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation.

The accused has a history of schizoaffective disorder but has remained stable, compliant with medication, and abstinent from substances while living in the community.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but, given her progress and stability, ordered a conditional discharge with requirements including residence, abstinence, and regular reporting.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had made some gains but remained incapable of consenting to antipsychotic treatment and experienced recent behavioral incidents.

Accepting a joint submission, the Board found the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a Detention Order within the Forensic Service with privileges up to indirectly supervised passes into the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson and assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had a stable year in the hospital and achieved indirectly supervised community passes.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to residual psychotic symptoms and the risk of decompensation under stress.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Disposition with a community living clause to facilitate his transition to supportive housing.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, had been living independently and abstaining from substances.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge with the removal of conditions requiring abstention from substances and drug screening, noting his internal motivation to remain abstinent.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel.

The treatment team recommended continuing the existing Detention Order with an increased reporting requirement to once weekly, citing the accused's limited insight, recent withdrawal from programming, and the need for close monitoring during his upcoming transition to community living.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the recommended weekly reporting requirement.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had previously held extremist religious beliefs that drove the index offence.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but noted his clinical stability and progress.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Order with the addition of indirectly supervised community privileges and the possibility of supervised community living, along with a no-contact order for the victim's family.

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.