Court File and Parties

Citation: R. v. Ibrahem, 2016 ONSC 6828

Court File No.: 13735/14

Date: 2016-11-01

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

– and –

Feraidon Ibrahem, Defendant

Counsel:

B. Green & N. Trbojevic, for the Crown

F. Davoudi & S. Caramanna, for the Defendant

Heard: November 1, 2016

Before: Justice B.A. Glass

Supplementary Reasons for Defence Application for Directed Verdict for Second Degree Murder

[1] On October 28, 2016, I released my decision for the Defence application that a directed verdict issue for second degree murder on the first degree murder count on the indictment.

[2] I dismissed the application.

[3] It has been brought to my attention by counsel that in my reasons I referred to evidence inaccurately. The paragraphs for consideration are 7, 8, 10, and 21.

[4] In paragraph 7, I erroneously referred to evidence that is not in evidence in the trial, but rather had been presented at the preliminary inquiry. Therefore, paragraph 7 is not a valid point of consideration. That means that at trial there is no evidence that the Defendant talked of how women should be killed because of the way they acted.

[5] Paragraph 8 is in error in stating that his journals reflected ceasing to continue living with his wife, leaving her if he was reported to the police and killing himself. In fact, the journals did not contain such reflections but rather Mr. Ibrahem discussed this during family discussions.

[6] Paragraph 10 stated that Mr. Ibrahem called his brother after stabbing his wife and spoke to the brother for 39 minutes. That is incorrect. He spoke to his brother for 11 minutes. There was a 39 minute gap between the time of the stabbing and calling 911.

[7] Paragraph 21 refers to the accumulated evidence that I considered. There is a reference to "talk of ending both lives". This wording appears at the end of the last sentence of paragraph 21. Those words should be excised as incorrect. I note that Mr. Ibrahem made illusions to harming his wife and ending his own life.

[8] With the amendments here, the decision to dismiss the application by the Defence for a directed verdict for second degree murder rather than first degree murder shall remain. The most significant consideration here is the adjustment to paragraph 7 from the decision. With the evidence reference eliminated, I am satisfied that there continues to be sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could make a finding of guilty for first degree. That will continue to be the decision of the jury.

Justice B.A. Glass

Released: November 1, 2016