Monica Samir Aboul Makarm Gharabaway

The Crown applied to have the offender designated as a dangerous offender following his conviction on 20 offences, including sexual assault with a weapon, human trafficking, and firearms offences.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal record, which demonstrated a persistent pattern of violent and aggressive behaviour, and considered expert psychiatric evidence diagnosing him with Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Finding that the offender poses a high risk of future violence and that his behaviour is intractable, the court designated him a dangerous offender.

Concluding that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The accused, charged with human trafficking and sexual services offences, brought a pre-trial motion for the disclosure of redacted portions of a complainant's police statement.

The Crown argued the redacted information, which related to an unrelated criminal investigation and the complainant's sexual history, was clearly irrelevant and raised privacy concerns.

The court applied the Stinchcombe framework, finding that the low threshold for relevance favoured disclosure and that the redacted portions were not clearly irrelevant to the defence.

The court also rejected the Crown's argument that the statement constituted a 'record' under section 278.1 of the Criminal Code, concluding it was subject to the common law first-party disclosure regime.

The application for disclosure was granted.

The accused was found guilty of human trafficking-related offences following a judge-alone trial.

Prior to sentencing, the accused brought an application for a mistrial and for the trial judge to recuse himself, arguing that the judge's decision to amend count 7 of the indictment created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judge had amended the charge from 'distributing' to 'transmitting' an intimate image without consent, as the evidence showed the image was sent to only one person (the complainant's mother).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the amendment was legally permissible under s. 601 of the Criminal Code, caused no prejudice to the accused, and would not lead a reasonable and right-minded person to apprehend bias.

The accused was tried on multiple charges including human trafficking, receiving material benefits, advertising sexual services, transmitting child pornography, and distributing intimate images relating to two young female complainants.

The court found that the accused exercised control over the movements of a 15-year-old complainant for the purpose of exploiting her in the sex trade, and that he received the financial benefits of her services.

The accused was found guilty of the human trafficking, child pornography, and intimate image offences, but was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm and breaching a release order.

The accused was convicted after trial by judge and jury of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused recruited and transported a vulnerable young woman living in a shelter, directing her to engage in sex work through online advertisements and hotel-based services.

The accused controlled the victim's earnings, imposed daily quotas, and restricted her access to food and money.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of five years, with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, resulting in 41 months to be served.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing objectives while considering the accused's age, limited criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The accused was convicted of eleven criminal offences related to human trafficking of two female complainants in the sex trade.

The offences included exercising control over the victims for exploitation, receiving financial benefits from their sexual services, assault, and sexual assault.

The accused played a critical leadership role as the "Queen of the Preem Team," grooming and controlling the victims while working with her boyfriend and his associate.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7½ years imprisonment (effectively 8 years with custodial credits), finding the accused was not a victim but a perpetrator who played an integral role in the exploitation.

The applicant brought a motion under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The applicant and co-accused were charged with human trafficking, receiving material benefit from human trafficking, receiving material benefit from sexual services, procuring, advertising sexual services, and theft.

The trial was initially scheduled for October 7, 2024, but was adjourned at the co-accused's request due to personal circumstances.

The rescheduled trial was set for September 29, 2025.

The court found that the net delay was 41 months and 28 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling by 11 months and 28 days.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court applied an individualized approach to delay attribution and found that the co-accused did not proceed as a collective.

The Crown could have ameliorated the delay through severance but failed to do so.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

This decision concerns the conviction of Rebecca Horton on multiple counts related to human trafficking, procuring, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, assault, and sexual assault involving two complainants, one of whom was under 18.

The court found that Horton, together with her then-boyfriend and another accused, operated a sex trade business in Toronto, exploiting vulnerable young women.

The judgment details the evidence, including text messages, complainant testimony, and the legal standards for each offence, ultimately finding Horton guilty on the majority of counts.

The court sentenced D.A.L. for procuring H.S. to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to section 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

The jury acquitted D.A.L. of all other charges, including human trafficking, receiving a material benefit, advertising, and violence-related offences.

The court reviewed the factual background, pre-sentence report, victim impact statement, and letters of support.

The Crown sought a two-year custodial sentence, while the defence argued for an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the vulnerability of the complainant, the offender’s lack of criminal record, his rehabilitation, and collateral immigration consequences.

After reviewing relevant case law and the unique circumstances, the court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence (minus 31 days for pretrial custody), to be served under house arrest, followed by 12 months’ probation, with additional conditions and a DNA order.

The accused, Jamaal Koehler, pleaded guilty to six counts including human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking, sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and administering a noxious substance (fentanyl) to the victim, N.F., between late 2019 and early 2020.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the brutal nature of the offenses, the administration of fentanyl, intimate partner violence, threats, and the accused's criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, sparing the victim from testifying, productive time in custody, and a rehabilitation plan, though tempered by poor bail compliance.

The court applied sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and totality, and considered relevant case law on sentencing ranges for human trafficking and sexual assault.

The court also addressed the "Morris" factor regarding systemic racism and the "Duncan" credit for harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, particularly an untreated medical issue.

A global sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment was imposed, with specific credit for time served, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registry Act (SOIRA) order.

The offender, Mr. Swaby, pleaded guilty to multiple offences including human trafficking, receiving material benefits from human trafficking, advertising sexual services, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and drug trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the manipulation of vulnerable victims through drugs and alcohol, the use of violence, and the presence of a firearm in an apartment with a child.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, insight into his substance abuse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of 11 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a restitution order of $30,000.

Police executed a search warrant at an apartment, finding a loaded firearm and various illicit drugs (crystal methamphetamine, powder cocaine, fentanyl).

Two defendants, Daylo Robinson and Dalton Wilson, were charged with multiple firearms and drug-related offences, as well as breaches of release orders.

The court assessed possession (personal, constructive, joint) based on circumstantial evidence, including the location of contraband, a digital scale, and a "daily diary" containing drug price lists.

The court found Daylo Robinson not guilty of firearms and drug charges but guilty of breaching his recognizance.

Dalton Wilson was found guilty of possession of cocaine and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of fentanyl, and breach of probation, but not guilty of firearms charges and fentanyl trafficking.

This ruling addresses a Section 8 Charter application brought by Daylo Robinson and Dalton Wilson to exclude a firearm and illicit drugs seized during the execution of a search warrant at Mr. Wilson's residence.

The applicants argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant lacked reasonable grounds to believe a firearm would be found or that evidence of procuring and obstruction of justice would be present in electronic devices.

The court reviewed the ITO holistically, considering multiple police reports and the affiant's expert opinion, and found that there were sufficient credible and reliable grounds to support the issuance of the search warrant.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Daylo Robinson and Dalton Wilson brought an application to exclude evidence found during a search warrant execution, arguing the information to obtain (ITO) did not establish reasonable grounds.

The Crown challenged Daylo Robinson's standing to assert a Section 8 Charter right, contending he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy as an unlawful occupant of the searched apartment.

The court applied the Edwards and El-Azrak tests, finding that while Robinson had a subjective expectation of privacy and some historical use, his illegitimate occupancy as an uninvited visitor, coupled with the Crown's theory of exploitation and intimidation, undermined any objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consequently, the court ruled that Robinson lacked standing to challenge the search.

The Crown applied for orders permitting the complainant in a human trafficking and sexual services case to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) and in the presence of a support person, pursuant to sections 486.2(2) and 486.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent opposed the CCTV request but consented to a support person in the courtroom.

The court granted both applications, finding that the use of CCTV and a support person would facilitate the complainant's ability to provide a full and candid account, considering factors such as the complainant's fear of the respondent, the nature of the offences, and the relationship between the parties.

The court rejected arguments regarding the right to face one's accuser and potential moral prejudice to the jury.

The defendant, Jean Edy Donacien, was convicted after a judge-alone trial of human trafficking, recruiting for sexual services, receiving material benefit from sexual services, assault causing bodily harm, two counts of assault, and unlawful confinement.

The court determined an appropriate sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the serious nature of the offences, the defendant's significant criminal record, and the exploitation of the vulnerable victim.

Mitigating factors included a supportive family and the unduly harsh conditions of presentence custody.

The court imposed a total sentence of five years imprisonment, with credit for presentence custody, and ordered restitution to the victim.

The accused, Jean Edy Donacien, was charged with multiple offences including human trafficking, recruiting/harbouring a person providing sexual services, receiving material benefit from sexual services, two counts of assault causing bodily harm, assault, and unlawful confinement.

The Crown alleged that the accused controlled the complainant, C.C., a sex trade worker, received all her earnings, and engaged in assaultive behaviour.

The defence challenged C.C.'s credibility and argued the financial arrangement was a legitimate living arrangement.

The court found C.C.'s testimony largely credible, corroborated by other evidence.

The accused was found guilty on most counts, with one count of assault causing bodily harm reduced to the lesser included offence of assault.

Julianna Fodor was charged with three human trafficking-related offences: exercising control for the purpose of sexual services, advertising sexual services, and receiving material benefit from sexual services.

The trial involved multiple Charter applications, including a defence application to re-open a previous Charter ruling regarding the seizure of a USB device and a new Charter argument concerning standing to challenge the seizure of the victim's bank records.

The court found Ms. Fodor guilty on all three counts, concluding that the Crown proved the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also dismissed a renewed s. 11(b) application for a stay of proceedings, finding that the delay was justified by the case's complexity and attributable in part to defence conduct.

The defendant, Tal Amdurski, brought a second s. 11(b) application to stay proceedings based on post-verdict delay, arguing that the seven months and ten days between verdict and anticipated sentencing violated the five-month ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, clarifying that the Jordan ceilings do not apply post-verdict and that time attributable to post-verdict motions unrelated to sentencing, such as the lost evidence application in this case, is to be considered separately.

After deducting the time for the lost evidence application, the remaining post-verdict delay was found not to be unreasonable.

The accused, charged with human trafficking offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, citing a delay of 19 months and 26 days.

The Crown argued the delay beyond the 18-month ceiling was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the unforeseen unlocking of the deceased complainant's cell phone on the eve of trial and the overall complexity of the case.

The court agreed, finding the police made reasonable efforts to unlock the phone and that the defence's legitimate but numerous applications added complexity that justified the delay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.