Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2025-05-15
Docket: COA-24-CR-0214
Panel: Michal Fairburn, John C. MacPherson, Eileen E. Gillese
Between:
His Majesty the King (Respondent)
and
Qalid Abderezak (Appellant)
Appearances:
Lance Beechener, for the appellant
Martin Heslop, for the respondent
Heard: 2025-05-13
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Michelle K. Fuerst of the Superior Court of Justice on November 30, 2022, with reasons reported at 2022 ONSC 6737.
Reasons for Decision
[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery using a restricted firearm, reckless discharge of a restricted firearm, unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm, and possession of a restricted weapon while prohibited by a release order.
[2] The various offences related to two separate incidents one week apart. In the first incident, the appellant pointed a handgun at the head of a woman sitting in a car and robbed her. In the second incident, the appellant parked a car in front of a law firm office and fired seven bullets into the front door/window area of the building.
[3] Both Crown and defence counsel agreed that the offences warranted a penitentiary sentence. The Crown sought a total sentence of 16 years. The defence sought a total sentence of six and a half years (if concurrent sentences were imposed for the two incidents) or ten years (if consecutive sentences were imposed).
[4] The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of 12 years less credit for pre-trial custody. The core of the sentence was seven years for the reckless discharge of a firearm (the second incident) and five years for the robbery of the woman in the car (the first incident), to be served consecutively. The appellant appeals the sentence.
[5] The appellant contends that the sentence offends the parity principle based, primarily, on the ten-year sentence the trial judge imposed on Zakariye Yousuf, a co-accused who engaged the appellant to commit both sets of offences.
[6] The appellant maintains that the difference between the appellant’s and Mr. Yousuf’s sentences is not understandable because Mr. Yousuf was equally, if not more, culpable in the crimes since he directed the appellant’s actions. While Mr. Yousuf may not have directed the appellant with precision, specifically in relation to the robbery, this does not create a sufficient distinction to justify the different sentences.
[7] We do not accept this submission. In R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, the Supreme Court of Canada said, at paras. 25-26:
Appellate courts must generally defer to sentencing judges’ decisions.
As this Court confirmed in Lacasse, an appellate court can only intervene to vary a sentence if (1) the sentence is demonstrably unfit (para. 41), or the sentencing judge made an error in principle that had an impact on the sentence (para. 44).
[8] In R. v. Bhatti, 2016 ONCA 769, this court said, at para. 6:
As this court recently reiterated in R. v. Beauchamp, 2015 ONCA 260, at para. 276, the parity principle is intended “to preserve fairness by avoiding disparate sentences where similar facts relating to the offence and offender would suggest like sentences”…. However, as the Beauchamp court emphasized, this does not mean that equal or identical sentences are required for similar offenders or similar offences. Rather, the rule against unreasonable disparity in sentencing requires understandable sentences, when examined together: Beauchamp, at para. 277.
[9] The sentence hearing for Mr. Yousuf took place after the sentence hearing for the appellant. The sentencing judge offered this explanation for the lower global 10-year sentence she imposed on Mr. Yousuf:
In assessing Mr. Yousuf’s degree of responsibility, his role in the offences is relevant. He was not the architect of the tactics intended to intimidate Ms. Carr, nor was it established that he was the source of any restricted firearm and ammunition that Mr. Abderezak used, nor was he present with Mr. Abderezak when the latter robbed Ms. Rose believing her to be Ms. Carr or when he discharged seven gunshots into Carr Law office. Mr. Yousuf’s role was that of the middleman who gave directions to Mr. Abderezak on behalf of someone else.
Crown counsel seeks a global sentence for Mr. Yousuf that is longer than that I imposed on Mr. Abderezak.
I am unable to agree that that is justified, because of their respective roles and because a sentence of 14 years in jail would be crushing for Mr. Yousuf, who is somewhat younger than Mr. Abderezak. [1]
[10] We see no error in the sentencing judge’s analysis or conclusion, especially in light of the deferential standard of review mandated by cases like Lacasse and Friesen. The appeal is dismissed.
“Michal Fairburn”
“John C. MacPherson”
“Eileen E. Gillese”