Fazal Zaban was convicted of manslaughter after being acquitted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Dung Le during a drug and firearms deal.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Zaban's extensive criminal record involving violence and firearms, the use of a prohibited firearm in a public place, and his failure to be deterred by previous sentences.

Mitigating factors included his supportive family, efforts at rehabilitation while incarcerated (obtaining a high school diploma, taking courses), and the exceptionally harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody, including prolonged lockdowns and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a sentence of 15 years to life, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 13 years' imprisonment, reduced from an initial assessment of 15 years due to the harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Zaban received credit for 7 years served, leaving 6 years remaining.

Mandatory lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA orders were also imposed.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after intentionally striking three teenagers with his vehicle following an earlier assault and robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the severity of injuries and the deliberate use of the vehicle as a weapon, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's youth, remorse, guilty plea, and rehabilitation efforts.

The judge imposed an intermittent sentence of 90 days for aggravated assault, followed by a 22-month conditional sentence for the driving offences, and 8 months of probation, along with a 5-year driving prohibition and other ancillary orders.

The offender, Abdul Hamid, was found guilty of breaching a s. 161(4) prohibition order, which prohibited contact with children under 16 unless supervised.

The breach involved inviting a 13-year-old vulnerable complainant into his apartment.

The Crown sought 10-12 months custody and probation, while the offender sought time-served or a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing goals for s. 161 breaches.

Considering aggravating factors (prior child-luring conviction, flagrant breach, lack of remorse, vulnerability of complainant) and mitigating factors (offence not instigated, family support, religious, physical disability, restrictive bail), the court imposed a sentence of 10 months imprisonment, with 3 months credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in an additional 5 months of provincial custody, followed by 3 years of probation.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate due to the need for strong denunciation and specific deterrence.

M.E.D. was convicted of multiple sexual violence offences, including human trafficking, receiving financial benefit from sexual services, procuring, advertising sexual services, and sexual assault, committed between August 2016 and January 2017.

The Crown sought an eight-year global sentence, while the defence proposed five years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the profound victim impact, profit motive, victim's attempts to escape, and the sexual assault.

Mitigating factors included the offender's age, difficult upbringing, mental health issues, family support, minimal criminal record, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody and bail, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

The court imposed a global sentence of six years imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in five years and nine months remaining to serve, along with various ancillary orders including a $10,000 restitution order.

The defendant, Isaac Kalejaiye, was found guilty after trial of dangerous operation of a conveyance.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intentional nature of his dangerous driving (road rage) which caused significant, lasting injuries to multiple victims, and his extensive criminal and driving record.

Mitigating factors included his mental health issues and proactive steps towards rehabilitation.

The court rejected both the defence's request for an absolute discharge and the Crown's proposed conditional sentence as too lenient, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

A period of incarceration and a significant driving prohibition were deemed necessary to reflect the gravity of the offence and the offender's culpability.

The offender, C.B., was found guilty after trial of sexually assaulting his biological daughter, including sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, when she was between 13 and 16 years old.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, the frequency and duration of the abuse, the victim's young age, and the degree of physical interference.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, community support, employment history, and mental health issues.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen and R. v. D.D., emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives for offences against children.

A global sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed, along with various ancillary orders including a non-communication order, a 10-year s. 161 prohibition order, a SOIRA order for life, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Michael Rodgers, a 24-year-old repeat offender with a severe drug addiction, pleaded guilty to six Criminal Code offences, including two counts of failing to stop for police, two counts of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, and breaches of probation and release orders.

The offences involved two separate police chases where he drove dangerously while prohibited.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his criminal record, disregard for court orders, and public safety risk, balanced against mitigating factors like his guilty plea, remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The primary issues were determining a fit global sentence and the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for harsh conditions due to prison lockdowns and COVID-19 quarantining.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months imprisonment, less 286 days of pre-sentence custody credit, followed by a one-year probation order and a 3-year driving prohibition.

Ginye Clarke pleaded guilty to multiple offences including robbery with a firearm, breach of recognizance, and various firearm possession charges.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 to 8 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years (60 months), applying 27 months of Summers credit and an additional 10 months of Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, resulting in a further 23 months to be served.

Ancillary orders for DNA, firearm forfeiture, and a lifetime weapons prohibition were also imposed, along with 12 months of probation.

Elias Gibb was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.

The Crown sought a 15-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought 12-14 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the senseless nature of the killing, the number of shots, the offender's criminal record, prior display of the gun, rejection of provocation defence, and increased gun violence in the region.

Mitigating factors included remorse, difficult childhood, family support, youth, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court also considered the jury's recommendation (majority 10 years) and the impact of Covid-19 on incarceration conditions, but affirmed proportionality.

The court imposed a life sentence with a 13-year period of parole ineligibility, rejecting the jury's majority recommendation due to the aggravating factors.

S.H., a 19-year-old with a lengthy youth record, was detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for firearm possession offences after a loaded handgun was found on him while being treated for gunshot wounds.

He applied for a bail review, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, increasing his risk in custody and providing a strong incentive to comply with bail conditions, especially with electronic monitoring.

The court considered the strong Crown case, gravity of the offence, and circumstances of the offence, which favored detention.

However, it also weighed the public health imperative of reducing inmate populations during the pandemic, supported by expert epidemiological evidence, and the anticipated trial delays.

The court found that with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring via Recovery Science Corporation (RSC) for GPS tracking, the applicant could be safely released, thereby enhancing public confidence in the administration of justice by contributing to public health efforts.