P.J.I. Alexander

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 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.

The Crown applied for certiorari to set aside a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge two respondents, Justin McGregor and Herve Kalonji, on various drug trafficking and criminal organization charges.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, affirming the narrow scope of jurisdictional review for preliminary inquiry decisions.

The court reiterated that such decisions are reviewable only for jurisdictional errors (e.g., failing to consider all evidence, impermissible weighing), not for errors of law or sufficiency of evidence.

The judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge properly exercised her jurisdiction in concluding there was insufficient evidence for committal, despite some potential errors in her reasoning regarding the evidence.