Monica Gharabaway

The offender pleaded guilty to human trafficking, pointing a firearm, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and receiving a financial benefit from trafficking.

He exercised significant control over the victim, a 20-year-old sex worker, using violence, threats, and manipulation, and kept all her earnings.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of violence and a prior criminal record against the mitigating factors of a guilty plea and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, with 4.5 years of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 2.5 years to serve.

The Crown applied to admit the out-of-court statements of a complainant who relocated to the United States and refused to testify at trial.

The statements included a sworn video statement to police and testimony from a preliminary hearing.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding that necessity was established due to the witness's unavailability and refusal to testify.

The court held that the sworn video statement met the threshold for reliability based on procedural and substantive factors, including extensive corroborative evidence.

The video statement was admitted for the truth of its contents, while the preliminary hearing testimony was ruled admissible only at the instance of the defence to challenge credibility and reliability.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault following an encounter with a woman he met on a dating app.

The complainant alleged she was drugged and sexually assaulted at the accused's condo.

The accused, who represented himself, testified that the encounter was consensual in its non-sexual aspects and that no sexual activity occurred, citing his severe physical and medical limitations.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework and found the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and logic, while the accused testified credibly.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The applicant, an Indigenous man charged with human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic assault, sought a bail review.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a new culturally appropriate supervision plan and an error in law by the initial justice who failed to properly apply Gladue principles.

Applying the ladder principle and considering the applicant's Indigenous background, the court found the proposed plan, which included residence at a Native men's shelter and supervision by the Toronto Bail Program, sufficiently addressed the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The applicant was ordered released on strict conditions.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery of convenience stores and two counts of failing to comply with probation.

The offender, who suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorders, committed the robberies while armed with a knife or a snow shovel.

The court found that the offender's mental illness did not mitigate his moral culpability as there was no causal link to the offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of 40 months' imprisonment, reduced to 5 months after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and institutional lockdowns.

The two accused were charged with multiple firearm and assault offences following a home invasion where the complainant was shot in the neck.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, DNA, and gunshot residue, to identify the accused as two of the three perpetrators.

The court dismissed a lost evidence application regarding unseized video surveillance.

Ultimately, the court found one accused guilty as a party to the offences based on DNA and circumstantial evidence connecting him to the scene.

However, the court acquitted the other accused, finding that the circumstantial evidence raised a reasonable doubt about his presence during the shooting.

The accused was found guilty of multiple offences, including discharging a firearm, aggravated assault, and dangerous operation of a vehicle, after firing 13 shots into a residential townhouse and subsequently engaging in a high-speed police pursuit.

A 10-year-old child sleeping inside the home was struck by a bullet.

The court dismissed a Kienapple application regarding the discharge firearm and aggravated assault counts, finding insufficient legal nexus.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun violence, the court imposed a global sentence of 12.5 years imprisonment, less 4 years of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 8.5 years left to serve.

The offender, a 58-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of historical sexual interference, sexual touching, and simple assault against a child who was between five and seven years old at the time.

The offences occurred approximately 30 years ago while the offender was in a position of trust living with the child's mother.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 to 4.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the significant impact on the victim, but considered the offender's age, poor health, and lack of criminal record as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm after striking a pedestrian while driving with a blood alcohol concentration approximately twice the legal limit.

The offence caused significant physical and psychological harm to the victim and involved property damage.

The accused had prior convictions for impaired driving and related offences, constituting a third drinking-and-driving offence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for impaired driving offences causing bodily harm.

Balancing aggravating factors with mitigating factors including a guilty plea, expressions of remorse, employment history, family support, and efforts at alcohol treatment, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The accused, a nightclub bouncer and a patron, were charged with aggravated assault following a violent altercation at a crowded nightclub.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from security personnel, the victim, and the victim's friend, as well as a statement from the bouncer's former girlfriend.

The court found the eyewitness identification evidence to be highly unreliable due to poor lighting, chaotic circumstances, inconsistencies, and evidence of collusion between the victim and his friend.

The court also admitted prior consistent statements from the bouncer.

Finding the Crown's evidence insufficient to prove identity and participation beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted both accused.