Ovais Ahmad

This sentencing decision concerns two co-accused, Tafari Bezabeh and Justin Harker, convicted by a jury of attempt murder and first degree murder arising from two closely connected shootings in Toronto on June 19, 2022.

The court reviews the facts, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the applicable case law, ultimately imposing life imprisonment for both offences, with no parole eligibility for 25 years on the murder count and a concurrent life sentence for attempt murder.

The decision emphasizes the need for denunciation and deterrence in the context of planned, public gun violence.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of extrinsic discreditable conduct, including cell phone images of the accused in possession of handguns and ammunition seized from a townhouse, in a murder and attempted murder trial.

The court applied the `Handy` test, admitting the cell phone images and ammunition due to their high probative value regarding identity, party liability, and planning, which outweighed their prejudicial effect.

However, the court excluded the admission of two specific handguns seized from the townhouse, as they were not the murder weapons and their probative value was minimal compared to the already admitted evidence and potential for prejudice.

The accused, Tafari Bezabeh, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 8 of the Charter of Rights, challenging the facial sufficiency of two search warrants for a London, Ontario residence and a car.

The warrants were executed nearly three weeks after two Toronto shootings for which the accused was charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The applicant argued that the warrants lacked reasonable grounds, contending that the residence was merely transitory and that the evidence would be stale due to the elapsed time.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that reasonable inferences supported the belief that relevant evidence would still be present at the rental residence, and that the standard for issuing a search warrant (reasonable and probable grounds) does not require the exclusion of alternative exculpatory inferences or proof on a balance of probabilities.

The accused pleaded guilty to a major mortgage fraud targeting an 83-year-old woman with dementia living in a long-term care home.

The accused and an unidentified female accomplice impersonated the victim and her son to secure a fraudulent mortgage, resulting in a loss of over $780,000 borne by the bank.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence given the vulnerability of the victim and the high moral blameworthiness of the offence.

The accused was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary and ordered to pay $583,455 in restitution.

The accused, Dwayne Scott, was tried for sexually assaulting the complainant, C.L., who experienced an alcohol-induced blackout and had no recollection of the events.

The sexual relations were not disputed, but the accused claimed they were consensual.

The court considered forensic toxicology evidence and video surveillance of C.L.'s state immediately prior to the alleged incident.

The judge found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that C.L. did not consent or was incapable of consenting, emphasizing that a blackout does not automatically equate to incapacity.

The accused's explanation for his post-incident conduct (lying and unsending messages) was found plausible and not indicative of consciousness of guilt.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant, Sean Ledoux, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to sexual assault after having unprotected vaginal sex with a friend who was unconscious due to alcohol and drug intoxication.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, plus probation, emphasizing Gladue principles and mitigating factors.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, victim vulnerability, duration of the assault, lack of condom use, and profound psychological and financial harm to the victim, who is a Queer Black woman.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's guilty plea, genuine remorse, compliance with bail, pro-social behaviour, care for his nephew, his mother's illness, and his Indigenous background marked by intergenerational trauma and alcohol abuse.

Applying the principles from R. v. R.S., the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for the seriousness of the offence, requiring an institutional sentence for denunciation and deterrence.

However, due to the compelling Gladue principles and other mitigating factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years probation, which is below the typical range for such offences.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, weapons prohibitions, and SOIRA registration.

The accused was arrested for impaired driving and repeatedly asked to urinate.

The police ignored his requests, resulting in the accused urinating in his clothing while in the back of the police cruiser.

Upon arrival at the police station, the police failed to provide him with dry clothing in a timely manner, leaving him in urine-soaked clothes for over two hours.

The court found that the police conduct demonstrated a systemic indifference to the dignity and personal security of the accused, breaching his rights under section 7 of the Charter.

Given the history of similar police misconduct, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy to dissociate the justice system from the impugned conduct.

Sanujan Thanabalasingam was found guilty after trial of impaired driving (80 or over) and driving while prohibited, both committed on May 15, 2020.

This was his second 80 or over offence, triggering a mandatory minimum 30-day imprisonment.

The Crown sought 60 days straight custody, while the defence requested 45 days intermittent.

The court considered aggravating factors (prior conviction, driving while prohibited, G2 license zero BAC, passenger injury, car damage) and mitigating factors (youthful age, stable employment, supportive family, acceptance of responsibility post-trial).

The judge ordered a 60-day intermittent sentence, 12 months probation, 120 hours community service, alcohol counselling, and a 30-month driving prohibition, emphasizing restraint and rehabilitation while upholding denunciation and deterrence.

The decision also addressed the "appropriate accommodation" requirement for intermittent sentences in light of temporary absence programs.

The accused and the complainant engaged in a consensual physical fight at a car wash over a perceived line-cutting incident.

During the altercation, the complainant grabbed and pulled out two of the accused's dreadlocks.

In response, the accused used a key on his keyring to strike the complainant, causing a puncture wound.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The court found that the consensual fight ended when the complainant pulled the accused's hair, causing bodily harm, and that the accused's use of the key was a reasonable and proportionate response in self-defence.

The Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.