Roxana Jahani-Geran

The defendant was convicted at trial of three counts of operating a conveyance while prohibited contrary to s. 320.18.

The Crown sought the maximum custodial sentence of 2 years less 1 day based on seven prior convictions for the same offence and eleven prior convictions for failing to comply with court orders.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence of 6-12 months, citing the jump principle and the defendant's indigenous background.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 15 months concurrent on all counts, finding that despite the serious criminal history and need for deterrence, the defendant had demonstrated positive change and rehabilitation potential, particularly following drug counselling in 2023 and the absence of further offences in the 20 months since the subject offences.

This decision addresses the Crown's application for abridgement of time for service and filing of its Form 2 response to a defence Charter Application under the Criminal Proceedings Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court emphasizes the fundamental importance of fairness and adherence to procedural rules but recognizes that inadvertent non-compliance, when explained and without bad faith, does not necessarily warrant prohibiting the Crown from responding.

The Court grants the Crown's application, allowing the late response, and highlights the discretion courts have to ensure just and efficient proceedings.

This sentencing decision addresses the conviction of Cengiz Ay for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The court considered aggravating factors including dangerous driving towards a residential home, structural damage, evacuation due to gas smell, and high intoxication.

Mitigating factors included the isolated nature of the incident, no prior record, and family support.

The judge imposed a global conditional sentence of 90 days (60 days for impaired operation and 30 days consecutive for refusal), house arrest with specific exceptions, a 24-month probation period with conditions including ignition interlock and counselling, and a 27-month driving prohibition.

The decision balances public safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of having a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit ("80+").

The defence sought to exclude breath test readings, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court addressed three main issues: whether police must delay an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test for 15 minutes, whether the officer had reasonable grounds for arrest and Approved Instrument (AI) demand given a lack of direct testimony about the ASD's working order, and an alleged cell toilet privacy breach.

The court found no requirement for a 15-minute delay and dismissed the privacy breach claim as inadvertent.

However, it found a Charter breach regarding the officer's failure to subjectively consider the objective reliability of the ASD.

Applying the R. v. Grant test for exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2), the court determined that despite the breach, its impact on the accused's Charter interests was nil, as the ASD was objectively proven reliable by other evidence.

Consequently, the admission of the breath test evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude was dismissed, and a finding of guilt was entered.