Nader Fakih

Hesham Mahbub pleaded guilty to multiple offences including child luring, sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, uttering a death threat, and breaching a release order.

The offences involved three girls under 16 years old, with aggravating factors such as arranged meetings, persistence despite refusal, and violation of bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years and 3 months, balancing the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation.

The decision includes detailed sentencing analysis referencing recent appellate and Supreme Court jurisprudence on child luring and sexual offences against children, and imposes ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA reporting order and a 10-year s.161 order restricting access to children.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of refusing to comply with an approved screening device demand.

The appeal argued that the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, specifically requiring "reasonable and probable grounds to believe" that the accused had care or control of a motor vehicle, instead of the lower standard of "reasonable grounds to suspect" as required by s. 320.27(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the trial judge indeed applied the wrong legal standard, which affected the verdict.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant sought to strike his guilty plea for tax evasion, arguing the sentencing judge failed to adequately inform him he was waiving his right to a trial where the Crown bore the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal found that a different judge had already provided this information four days prior to the plea, and the appellant was fully aware of the implications of his plea.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court also noted that by pleading guilty, the appellant waived his right to challenge a prior Charter application decision.

The Crown applied for a bail review of a justice of the peace's decision to release the accused, who was charged with multiple serious offences involving the prolonged abuse of a child.

The reviewing judge found that the justice of the peace committed legal errors by misapprehending the timeline of the offences, failing to consider the gravity of the charges, and refusing to assess the potential for a lengthy sentence.

Conducting a fresh analysis under the tertiary ground, the court concluded that pre-trial detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given the strength of the Crown's case, the heinous circumstances of the alleged offences, the accused's prior criminal record, and the lack of a meaningful release plan.

The application was granted and the accused was remanded into custody.