Onkar Bedi

The accused was sentenced for criminal harassment and uttering threats arising from a parking lot encounter in which he threatened sexual violence and made Islamophobic comments to a Muslim woman.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the offences were motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion and that the complainant's vulnerability in the circumstances engaged s. 718.04, making denunciation and deterrence primary sentencing objectives.

Although the accused's remorse, rehabilitative programming, prior good character, and possible collateral consequences were mitigating, the court held that a discharge or suspended sentence would be contrary to the public interest and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.

A 90-day conditional sentence concurrent on both counts was imposed, together with a five-year s. 110 order and a DNA order, and the Kienapple argument was rejected because the uttering threats count contained a distinct factual element.

After a trial on charges arising from an early-morning parking lot encounter, the court accepted the complainant's evidence that the accused threatened to rape her and made hateful anti-Muslim remarks after she tried to end the conversation.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's account as internally implausible and inconsistent with surveillance evidence, while finding the complainant credible and materially corroborated by video and contemporaneous phone activity.

The court held that the proven conduct amounted to threatening conduct causing reasonable fear for safety under s. 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code.

On the uttering threats count, the court amended the charge under s. 601(2) from a threat of death to a threat of bodily harm to conform to the evidence, and entered a conviction.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the defendant Robert Montet’s Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to breath sample evidence obtained following a roadside Approved Screening Device (ASD) failure.

The Court found no breach of section 7 regarding alleged failure to provide fresh clothing, no section 8 violation as the warrantless breath demands were reasonable, no section 9 violation for alleged arbitrary detention despite a 6.5-hour hold post-breath sample, and no section 10(b) violation for delays in providing rights to counsel.

The breath sample evidence was admitted, resulting in a finding of guilt for driving with blood alcohol content over 80 mg per 100 mL under section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.