ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
NEWMARKET
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MOHAMMED ABDIKA TAHLIL
SENTENCING – RULING ON PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY
Heard: July 14, 2026.
Ms. Sumrana Taher counsel for the Crown
Mr. Joshua Ng counsel for the defendant
KENKEL J.:
Introduction
1Mr. Tahlil pleaded guilty to one count of Fraud Exceeding $5000. He asked that time spent in custody in another jurisdiction on other charges be credited towards this sentence.
2Section 719(3) permits a court to consider "any time spent in custody … as a result of the offence". In R v Wilson, 2008 ONCA 510 at para 45, the Court of Appeal explained that accused persons cannot "bank" time spent in custody. "When it comes time to sentence an offender, the court can only take into account factors that relate to the particular offence under consideration."
3Courts have declined to apply credit for time served on other offences in several situations:
Incarceration prior to trial where the accused was serving a sentence on another offence – R c Vanier, 2023 ONCA 545 at para 70, R v Bedard-Morin, 2022 ONCA 844 at para 11.
Time served on sentence in relation to another offence where that conviction was later quashed on appeal – R v Wilson, 2008 ONCA 510, R v Latif, 2019 ONCA 309.
Pre-sentence custody served in relation to another offence which was to be used on the resolution of that offence, but the plea was struck (remains available on that offence) – R v Ceasor, 2021 ONCA 54.
Pre-sentence custody on offences which were eventually stayed, where there was no apparent link between that detention and the offences for which he had bail – R v Pammett, 2016 ONCA 979.
Pre-sentence custody served on a third set of charges, where the accused did not seek bail on those charges and the bail for the original charges was never revoked – R v Mahmoudi-Kashani, 2024 ONCA 256.
The Barnett Exception
4There is an exception. Where the accused has a release, but is later detained on further charges, if his detention was in part "as a result of" his outstanding charges then he may claim a one-time credit on sentence on either set of charges. In R v Barnett, 2017 ONCA 897, the accused was released on robbery charges but later detained on further charges. His bail on the original robbery charges was not revoked. The record showed that bail on the second set of charges was refused in part because of the original outstanding charges.
5The exception requires a "proven link between the detention and the charges" before the sentencing court – Barnett at para 29. "Sections 719(3) and (3.1) require that there be some causal connection, a sufficient link or relation between the offence for which the offender is being sentenced and the pre-sentence custody. That relation or link can exist with more than one offence. It is not limited to the offence that directly triggered the detention but will include offences that contributed to the denial of bail or, in the trial judge's assessment, factored into the offender's decision to not seek bail on the charges that triggered the detention order." – Barnett at para 30.
6A proven link includes an intention by the Crown to apply under s 524 to cancel the existing release if the accused seeks bail on the new charges – R v Jordan, 2021 ONCJ 460, affirmed on other grounds 2022 ONCA 649.
7The inquiry into the connection between the charge before the court and the reasons for pre-sentence custody must not become complicated or overly adversarial – Barnett at para 32. The Crown is encouraged to acknowledge a connection where that is apparent. Defence counsel may advise the court of relevant circumstances without becoming a witness. The circumstances may include a choice not to proceed with a bail hearing which was opposed or rendered futile by the fact of the original charges. If necessary, the burden is on the defence to provide evidence to establish the alleged connection.
This Case
8Mr. Tahlil did not seek release on his Toronto charges. His release in Newmarket was never revoked.
9Mr. Ng advised that Mr. Tahlil did not seek release on his Toronto charges in part because of his outstanding charges in Newmarket, including the Fail to Appear charge. Ms. Taher confirmed that the Toronto Crowns were opposed to bail for the same reason.
10Having worked through the legal test and the evidence with both counsel, I agree with their conclusion that the accused has shown a sufficient link between his time served on the other offences and the charges before this court to permit that time to be taken into account on this sentence.
Delivered: July 14, 2026.
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel