Paul Zambonini

Sentencing for second degree murder arising from the killing of the offender's mother while the offender was suffering from schizophrenia.

The court treated the parent-child relationship and the resulting breach of trust as aggravating, but found the offender's severe mental illness significantly diminished moral blameworthiness and elevated rehabilitation and treatment as major sentencing considerations.

Rejecting the Crown's submission that planning and deliberation should aggravate sentence, the court fixed parole ineligibility near the low end of the range.

A life sentence was imposed with 11 years' parole ineligibility, together with DNA, lifetime weapons prohibition, and communication prohibition orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after shooting the victim in self-defence.

The guilty plea was based on the offender intentionally bringing a firearm to a party and provoking a conflict with the victim.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and the extremely harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment, leaving 129 days to serve after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in a planned robbery that resulted in a gunfight and the death of a bystander.

The court found as an aggravating fact that the offender knew his accomplice would be armed and that the robbery victim would likely be armed.

Taking into account the offender's youth, guilty plea, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, the court sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, suffering from severe untreated schizophrenia, stabbed and killed his mother in a park.

At trial, the defence argued he was not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, claiming he acted on an auditory command hallucination.

The court rejected the NCR defence, finding the psychiatric opinions relied too heavily on the accused's uncorroborated hearsay self-reports.

However, the court also found the Crown failed to prove the murder was planned and deliberate, as the accused's mental illness raised a reasonable doubt about his capacity to plan and deliberate.

The accused was found not guilty of first-degree murder but guilty of the included offence of second-degree murder.

The court considered whether Mohamed Siad should be designated a dangerous offender following a series of violent offences, primarily against intimate partners and family members.

After reviewing Siad’s history of escalating violence, repeated breaches of court orders, failed attempts at rehabilitation, and psychiatric evidence, the court found that Siad’s conduct was intractable and that he posed a high risk of future violence.

The court designated Siad a dangerous offender and imposed a global sentence of five years’ incarceration (after credit for pretrial custody), followed by a seven-year long-term supervision order, with ancillary orders including DNA and weapons prohibitions.

Joao Guimaraes was found in contempt of court for refusing to testify as a Crown witness at a preliminary inquiry.

Despite being cautioned, he repeatedly refused to answer questions, citing fear for his safety.

At the subsequent contempt hearing, he did testify and answered all questions.

The court considered the seriousness of contempt, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, but also noted mitigating factors: Guimaraes' youth (23), lack of prior record, genuine fear, and the limited impact of his refusal on the preliminary hearing's outcome.

He had also been acquitted of the underlying firearms charges and had served 40 days (credited as 60 days) in pre-sentence custody for the contempt.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with six months of probation, finding the pre-sentence custody sufficient accountability given the unique circumstances.

Nicola Puddicombe, convicted of first-degree murder, applied for a reduction in her parole eligibility period under the "faint hope" clause (s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code).

The screening judge determined whether there was a reasonable prospect that a jury would reduce her parole ineligibility.

The court found that despite the cold-blooded nature of the murder and the applicant's initial denial of full responsibility, her significant progress in therapy, positive institutional conduct, and evolving insight into her role in the offence provided a reasonable likelihood of success before a jury.

The application to empanel a jury was granted.

The respondent, an in-custody witness, refused to testify at a preliminary inquiry, citing a general fear for his safety due to the 'jailhouse code' against testifying.

The presiding judge cited him for contempt.

At the contempt hearing, the respondent argued that a preliminary inquiry judge lacks jurisdiction to cite for contempt and that his fear amounted to duress.

The court held that a preliminary inquiry judge has jurisdiction to find a witness in contempt for conduct in the face of the court.

The court further held that a generalized fear of retribution without a specific threat does not meet the criteria for the defence of duress.

The respondent was found in contempt.

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.

Dayne Sitladeen was found guilty of manslaughter in the shooting death of Blain Grindley.

The court considered aggravating factors including his extensive criminal record involving violence and firearms, his leadership role in the offence, and his flight to the United States where he continued criminal involvement.

Mitigating factors included some rehabilitative efforts in detention.

The court imposed a sentence of 13 years imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his unexpired U.S. sentence, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for firearm-related offences.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder following a shooting during a drug and firearm transaction inside a vehicle.

The accused admitted to shooting the deceased but claimed self-defence, alleging the deceased attempted to rob and kidnap him.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused's response of discharging the firearm eight times was unreasonable in the circumstances.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the requisite intent for murder beyond a reasonable doubt, as the shooting occurred during a struggle.

The accused was acquitted of murder and convicted of the lesser included offence of manslaughter.

Alexander Clarke pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence.

This was his eighth robbery conviction, committed while on parole for previous robberies.

The Crown sought a long-term offender designation and a 10-year sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order (LTSO).

Defence counsel agreed to the long-term offender designation but sought a 6.5-8 year sentence and a 3-5 year LTSO.

The court found Clarke to be a long-term offender, applying the "step principle" for repeat offenders, and sentenced him to a total of nine years imprisonment (with 56.25 months credit for presentence custody) and an eight-year LTSO.

The court emphasized the need for specific deterrence and public protection, while also acknowledging the offender's efforts at rehabilitation and expressing hope for his future.

The Crown brought an application to admit the accused's rap music videos and lyrics as prior discreditable conduct evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The Crown sought to use the evidence to establish the accused's membership in a street gang and to provide a motive for the shooting.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of a relationship between the deceased and the accused, nor any evidence that the deceased was involved in gang activity.

The court concluded that the lyrics were not relevant to an issue at trial and their prejudicial effect far outweighed any probative value.

Awaleh Ismail Hassan pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, stemming from a shootout where his friend was killed and he was injured.

The Crown sought a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment, while the defence requested a suspended sentence or time served.

The court considered the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for gun-related crimes, alongside significant mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, remorse, difficult background, lack of relevant criminal record, family support, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody, including medical neglect and the impact of anti-Black racism.

The court sentenced Mr. Hassan to two years less one day imprisonment, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in one additional day of imprisonment followed by two years probation.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapon prohibition and a DNA order.

This decision addresses the admissibility of a photograph in a criminal trial for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown sought to admit a photograph alleged to depict the accused at the scene of a shooting, despite the defence's argument that it lacked authentication due to informer privilege and the absence of a direct authenticating witness.

The court ruled that the photograph was admissible, finding it had been authenticated by circumstantial evidence through comparison with other reliable video and photographic evidence.

Concerns regarding the photo's origin or potential tampering were deemed matters of weight for the trier of fact, not admissibility.

Adil Zeno, convicted of accessory after the fact to murder, brought a post-verdict application for a stay of proceedings under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter, alleging abuse of process by the Crown.

The alleged abuse primarily related to a separate murder prosecution and the Crown's position on bail.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the alleged misconduct was not related to the current proceeding and that alternative remedies, such as seeking damages in the other proceeding, were available.

The court emphasized that a stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy reserved for the 'clearest of cases' and that impugned conduct must be related to the proceeding before the court.

The accused, Kevin George, was sentenced for discharging a firearm with intent and failing to comply with a release order, stemming from a shooting at his child's birthday party where he fired six rounds, injuring two children and another man.

The court stayed aggravated assault convictions under the Kienapple principle.

The judge considered the serious aggravating factors, including the use of a handgun, the large number of people imperiled (especially children), the breach of bail, and the number of shots fired.

While acknowledging the devastating impact of the injuries, the court found that causation for the injuries was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused, thus not treating them as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included family support, employment efforts, youth, and the limited impact of race and social context on moral culpability.

The court imposed a sentence of 11 years in penitentiary, reduced by 10.5 months for pre-sentence custody, for a net sentence of 10 years, 1.5 months, to be served concurrently with a 12-month sentence for the bail breach.

The defendant, Adil Zeno, brought a Charter application to exclude video evidence from a cell phone, alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while there was a breach of the defendant's section 10(b) right to counsel due to an unreasonable delay, and accepted for the purpose of the application that there was a section 8 breach related to the search warrant for the cell phone, these breaches were not serious enough to warrant exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the police acted in good faith, and the evidence was reliable and relevant to the Crown's case.

The application to exclude evidence was denied.

This is a sentencing decision for Salman Ahmed, who was convicted of second-degree murder.

The primary issue was determining the period of parole ineligibility, which carries a mandatory life sentence with a general 10-year ineligibility period, extendable up to 25 years under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought 25 years, while the defence argued for 12 years.

The court considered the jury's recommendation (which was given little weight), the violent nature and circumstances of the carjacking and murder, and the offender's character, including his youth, first-time offender status, and challenging background, balanced against his poor conduct in custody.

The court ultimately imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 18 years, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the use of firearms and forcible confinement.

The defendant, Adil Zeno, was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his criminal record, lack of coercion, and the compounding of victim suffering, and mitigating factors including his youth and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4-5 years, while the defence sought 18-24 months.

The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years, which was covered by the 44 months of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a sentence of one day in jail in addition to time served.

A 10-year prohibition order and a DNA order were also imposed, but probation was denied.