COURT FILE NO.: CR 19-1618

DATE: 2021 07 21

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

David D’Iorio, for the Crown

– and –

AZAR SHEIKH

Amadeus DiCarlo, for the Accused

HEARD: May 18, 2021

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

J.M. WOOLLCOMBE J.

Overview

[1] Too many people make the terrible decision to get into their cars after drinking alcohol. Their ability to drive safely and to react to their environment is impaired. They make risky choices. They go too fast. They race. They cause serious crashes between vehicles. The consequences can be nothing short of tragic for all who are impacted. People are killed and permanently injured. The lives of their families and friends are devastated and forever changed because someone else’s incredibly poor decisions needlessly took from them what can never be replaced.

[2] This case has all those features.

[3] In the early hours of September 14, 2017, Mr. Sheikh decided to get into his BMW after drinking. He drove north on Mavis Road at a speed well over the limit. At the same time, Diosdada Pascual and Rustico Gamut were driving home from work in Mr. Pascual’s Highlander. As they turned from going south on Mavis Road to going east on Bristol Road, Mr. Sheikh crashed into them. Mr. Gamut was killed. Mr. Pascual was injured. Mr. Sheikh was criminally charged.

[4] On March 11, 2021, after a trial, I found Mr. Sheikh guilty of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm. On consent, the dangerous driving charges were provisionally stayed.

[5] The issue to be determined is what is a fit sentence for Mr. Sheikh on the impaired driving and criminal negligence charges.

[6] No sentence can ever change the devastating impact that these offences have had on Mr. Gamut, who died, or on Mr. Pascual, or on their families and friends. The criminal justice system can denounce Mr. Sheikh’s conduct and seek to deter others. It cannot repair what has been done. It cannot replace what has been lost. I want to express to the family of Mr. Gamut, and to Mr. Pascual and his family, my sincere condolences for your loss and suffering.

[7] At the same time, the sentence I impose must reflect consideration of Mr. Sheikh’s personal circumstances. I heard him speak about how hard he has found his life since the collision. I have no doubt that he has been, and will continue to be, deeply affected by the consequences of his choices. The sentence must be a fit one for Mr. Sheikh and must recognize his strong rehabilitative prospects.

Relevant Facts

Circumstances of the offences

[8] In my reasons for judgment, I set out in detail my factual findings. Those reasons are reported at 2021 ONSC 1847.

[9] I will only briefly summarize the facts. I found that on September 14, 2017, Mr. Sheikh got into his car having consumed both alcohol and MDMA. He was impaired and had a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) that was at least in the high 70’s mg alcohol in 100 mL of blood, and likely higher. As he drove north on Mavis Road, he tried to engage other drivers to race with him. He revved his engine, matched their speeds and drove at excessive speeds, well over the 70 kph speed limit. He was trying to show off his BMW sports car and its powerful engine. He wanted to race.

[10] Mr. Sheikh’s driving as he approached the intersection of Mavis and Bristol Road reflected this same pattern. This was a mixed residential area. It was shortly after 1:00 a.m. He drove at a speed of at least 112 kph, and likely higher, as 112 kph was the speed at which he impacted Mr. Pascual’s car as it turned left onto Bristol Road. Mr. Sheikh crashed his BMW into the Highlander, killing Mr. Gamut and seriously injuring Mr. Pascual. Had Mr. Sheikh been travelling at any speed under 102 kph, Mr. Pascual’s Highlander would have had time to safely clear the intersection.

Circumstances of the offender

[11] Mr. Sheikh is 35 years old.

[12] He has provided a significant number of letters of support from his family members, including his parents, adoptive mother and siblings. His childhood was unusual in that his birth parents conceived him so that he could be adopted by his aunt and uncle, who were unable to have children. From the age of three months, he lived in Pakistan with his aunt and uncle as his adoptive parents. When his adoptive father died, he returned to Canada, then aged 12. He was raised as the youngest sibling in what was a loving, close and supportive family.

[13] Whatever early challenges he had in adjusting to his life in Canada, Mr. Sheikh completed school and obtained an Honours Bachelor of Administrative Studies – Marketing from York University. At the time of the offences in 2017, he worked as a marketing manager, having been employed in various positions steadily since 2012. His academic and work credentials are impressive.

[14] Mr. Sheikh was an upstanding member of the community up to the time of these offences. Hardworking and intelligent, he had proven himself to be a professional, reliable and motivated employee. Those who have known him for years describe him as a person of compassion and integrity. He has been generous of his time with his family, friends and in his service to the community, including through significant financial contributions to various charities.

[15] As a result of the charges, Mr. Sheikh’s employment was terminated. He has not worked since. At the time of the offences, Mr. Sheikh was engaged to be married. That relationship ended because of the charges. Many of those who have provided letters of support relate the significant impact on Mr. Sheikh’s mental health that has flowed from him having had to put his life on hold as he awaited the trial outcome.

[16] Mr. Sheik’s family members have described what they perceive as a dramatic change in him since the time of the offences. They say that while he lost so much, including his job, his fiancée and his relationships with friends and co-workers, he had been resilient. He has focused on supporting his family, immersing himself in his faith and finding positive influences in his life.

[17] By way of examples, the letters provided reveal that Mr. Sheikh supports and cares for his adoptive mother, who depends on him for her personal and financial affairs. He helps his aging parents in a range of ways. He supports his sister with her business. He spends time with his nieces and nephew, to whom he demonstrates his work ethic, courage and patience and is described as a tremendous role model. His family believes Mr. Sheikh to have grown and matured. I accept that.

[18] Mr. Sheikh spoke at his sentencing hearing. I found him eloquent and accept that his words were sincere. He conveyed that he understands the depth of loss suffered by the Gamut family and that he prays for them. He says that not a day goes by that he does not think about the families that were impacted by the collision. He says while he was in a dark place after the collision, he has come to understand that life is short and precious and is grateful for the opportunity he has to continue to live his life. He has neither consumed alcohol nor driven since the offences. He seems to have found some comfort in his faith.

[19] Mr. Sheikh also spoke about the significant impact that these offences have had on him. He described the difficulty of not having worked for three and a half years. He feels he has lost his reputation, as well as his friends and his business relationships. He has felt purposeless and anxious. I accept that the last few years have proven very challenging for Mr. Sheikh.

[20] Mr. Sheikh’s medical records were filed as exhibits on sentence. While he suffered a number of injuries from the collision, the most significant and long-lasting is to his lung. As a result of the collision and deployment of his air bag, he suffered lung damage and a pleural effusion. This means that he suffers from a build up of fluid in the chest cavity, which has needed to be drained, despite successful surgery in 2018. The lining of his chest cavity can become infected and require antibiotics. His most recent annual chest x-ray, in January 2021, showed some fluid build up.

[21] A medical note from Dr. Sadro, Mr. Sheikh’s physician, indicates that he is at an increased risk of complications were he to contract COVID 19. He is not at an increased risk of contracting the virus. As of the May 18, 2021 sentencing hearing, while eligible to receive a first COVID-19 vaccine, Mr. Sheikh had chosen not to do so.

[22] Mr. Sheikh has one prior criminal conviction for theft under in June, 2007, for which he received a suspended sentence and probation.

[23] In addition, he has a driving record that was filed by the Crown. The most relevant parts of that record are three speeding convictions with offence dates of March 29, 2006 (90 kph in a 50 zone), May 24, 2013 (65 kph in a 50 zone) and October 5, 2016 (75 kph in a 60 zone) and two convictions for disobey legal sign with offence dates of October 17, 2008 and February 8, 2017. In addition there are four convictions for driving with a suspended license (with convictions dated March 2006, June 2006, January 2007; and June 2007).

[24] Mr. Sheikh’s driving record also includes convictions for: fail to have insurance card x 3 (December 2004, February 2006 and June 2006); operate vehicle no insurance x 2 (March 2005 and March 2006); improper seat belt (March 2005); no currently valid permit (June 2005); new owner fail to apply for permit (March 2006); permit use of plate not authorised by vehicle x2 (February 2007 and December 2008); no drivers license or improper class of license x 2 (July 2013 and October 2013); and permit use of valtag not authorized (March 2006).

Impact of the offences

[25] There can be no doubt that this collision devastated the family of Mr. Gamut and Mr. Pascual and his family.

[26] Some of Mr. Gamut’s family members read their victim impact statements in court. The Crown read additional victim impact statements. I have re-read all of them.

[27] Mr. Gamut and his wife Christinelly were married for 47 years. It is clear that they had a loving relationship and that she misses him every day. Mr. Gamut was a binding force in their family. Kind, caring and compassionate, he had a warm personality that brightened a room. He loved family meals and time together, particularly watching the Raptors with his extended family His loss has devastated all generations in this close family – his wife, his daughters, who so clearly adored him, and his grandchildren, who lovingly called him Tat and revelled in their time with him. Each family member has grieved this loss in their own way. I was struck by the way every family member I heard from continues to feel his absence deeply. This reflects, I am sure, the close, supportive, individual relationships he had with each of those people for whom he cared so much. He is missed every day. He is missed when his family is together. He is missed on all those landmark occasions that now take place without him.

[28] Mr. Pascual has also conveyed the profound effect of Mr. Sheikh’s offences on him. He describes suffering from severe ongoing physical injuries that cause him significant pain. His shoulder was damaged and cannot be repaired. It will need to be replaced. He has also suffered tremendous emotional and mental pain. He grieves the loss of Rustico Gamut, his oldest and dearest friend. His memories of the collision haunt him when he tries to sleep. He has lost the joy he used to feel about going to work and seeing is co-workers. Rather than feeling happiness, he feels pain and stress about what his life has become.

Positions of the parties

[29] The Crown seeks a sentence of imprisonment for five to six years, followed by a 10 year driving prohibition, in addition to the time for which Mr. Sheikh has already been prevented from driving as a result of his bail condition (which was 3 years and 8 months at the time of the sentencing hearing and is now just over 3 years and 10 months).

[30] The defence seeks a conditional sentence, followed by a lengthy term of probation. The defence position is that a five year driving prohibition would be appropriate. While counsel acknowledged that the range of fit sentence may include a sentence in the penitentiary range, the submission is made that Mr. Sheikh’s unique background, and the fact that Mr. Pascual is said to have contributed to what occurred, make a reformatory sentence fit. The position advanced is that this reformatory sentence should be served in the community as a conditional sentence.

Analysis

Statutory Considerations

[31] The objectives and principles of sentencing are set out in the Criminal Code.

[32] Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions with one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[33] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code makes clear that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[34] Section 718.2 lists a number of other principles of sentence. The most important in this case are that the sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

Relevant Jurisprudence

[35] A wide range of circumstances can lead to conditions for criminal negligence causing death and impaired driving causing death. For this reason, the Court of Appeal has never defined a formal range of appropriate sentence for these offences. Imposition of a just and appropriate sentence must take into account the particular circumstances of the offences and the offender. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. The principles of deterrence and denunciation are the primary considerations: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 73; R. v. Ramage, 2010 ONCA 488 at para. 74; R. v. Altiman, 2019 ONCA 511 at paras. 31 and 48.

[36] The cases establish that sentences imposed for impaired driving cases involving deaths have increased incrementally over the last two decades. In Altiman, Brown J.A. reviewed this trend, highlighting the relevant Court of Appeal decisions and summarizing his review in the following terms at paras. 70-71:

70 This review of the case law leads me to conclude that, since the turn of the decade, in this province sentences for impaired driving causing death typically have fallen in the four to six-year range, unless the offender has a prior criminal or driving offence record. Where he does, lengthier sentences have been imposed, ranging from seven and one-half to twelve years. In Lacasse, a case coming out of Quebec, the Supreme Court upheld a sentence of six and one-half years for impaired driving causing the death of two passengers, even though the offender had been convicted three times for speeding: at para. 80.

71 While these have been the lengths of sentences imposed in practice by Ontario courts over the past decade, it remains the case that this court has not defined a formal range for such sentences in light of the infinite variety of circumstances in which the offence can be committed: Junkert, at para. 40.

[37] Relatively recent Ontario Superior Court decisions reflect, similarly, the imposition of sentences in these same ranges for cases of impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death cases : R. v. Gabriel, 2021 ONSC 2488; R. v. Osman, 2019 ONSC 327; R. v. Canavan, 2018 ONSC 7218.

[38] Notwithstanding that the normal range of sentence for these offences is a penitentiary term of incarceration, it is the defence position that a conditional sentence is available for Mr. Sheikh, and that this is a case in which a conditional sentence would be fit and appropriate.

[39] There is strong disagreement between the Crown and defence about the legal availability of a conditional sentence. Section 742.1 provides that if the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may impose a conditional sentence if certain criteria are met. For the purposes of this case, the following are relevant:

(a) the court is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2;

(b) the offence is not an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment

(c) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life;

(e) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years, that

(i) resulted in bodily harm,

(ii) involved the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, or…

[40] Criminal negligence causing death is an indictable offence for which the maximum sentence is life. It is captured by the s. 742.1(c). Criminal negligence causing bodily harm, if prosecuted by indictment as occurred in this case, has a maximum sentence of 10 years. It is captured by s. 742.1(e)(i).

[41] A year ago, in R. v. Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478, the Court of Appeal considered the constitutionality of s. 742.1(c) and of s. 742.1(e)(ii), both of which removed the availability of a conditional sentence in certain circumstances. The Court of Appeal divided, with the majority striking down those two sections as unjustifiable infringements of ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter. It was the dissenting justice’s conclusion that the legislation did not violate the Charter. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was granted on January 14, 2021. The appeal has not yet been heard. I am bound by Sharma, and accept that a conditional sentence is not precluded by either ss. s. 742.1(c) or 742.1(e)(ii).

[42] The defence position is that as a result of the Court of Appeal decision in Sharma, a conditional sentence is now available to him. The Crown position is that the constitutionality of s. 742.1(e)(i) was not before the Court of Appeal in Sharma and that the Court did not consider or decide whether it violated the Charter and did not strike it down. It is this section, the Crown submits, that precludes a conditional sentence for Mr. Sheikh.

[43] It is my conclusion, for reasons that I will set out, that a sentence of less than two years is not appropriate for Mr. Sheikh in all of the circumstances. As a result of that conclusion, a conditional sentence is unavailable to Mr. Sheikh. It follows that I need not resolve the debate between counsel about the effect of Sharma on the availability of a conditional sentence for Mr. Sheikh for criminal negligence causing bodily harm. That issue is best resolved in a case in which it is squarely raised by its facts: R. v. Nobbs, 2020 ONSC 2341 at paras. 61-64.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

[44] I turn now to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

[45] I find that the following factors are aggravating in this case:

(i) Prior or getting into his vehicle, Mr. Sheikh had consumed both MDMA and alcohol. While I can make no finding about the effect of the MDMA, I found that his consumption of alcohol caused him to be impaired and affected his decision-making;

(ii) Mr. Sheikh tried to and did engage others on the road in racing as he sped north on Mavis Road. This collision was not as a result of an isolated few seconds of driving too fast. It was after Mr. Sheikh had deliberately engaged in an objectively dangerous pattern of driving that persisted for some minutes;

(iii) My finding that Mr. Sheikh raced his car with others is a statutorily aggravating factor under s. 320.22(b) of the Criminal Code;

(iv) The collision took place in a residential area. This was not an isolated, rural location where other vehicles could not have been anticipated to be around. Mr. Sheikh knew that there were other motorists on the roads, that there were controlled intersections along Mavis Road and that pedestrians were likely to be in the area. He chose to speed and race his car in an area in which there was a heightened risk of death or injury to others;

(v) Mr. Sheikh approached the intersection of Mavis Road and Bristol Road at a speed in excess of 112 kph where the posted limit was 70 kph. But for his grossly excessive speed, the collision would not have occurred;

(vi) The commission of the offences resulted in bodily harm to one victim and death to another, a statutorily aggravating factor under s. 320.22(a) of the Criminal Code;

(vii) While many of Mr. Sheikh’s driving infractions are not really relevant to sentence, in that they are not moving violations, he has three prior speeding convictions and two prior convictions for disobey sign. It is noteworthy, however that the most serious speeding conviction for 40 kph over the limit was for driving in March, 2006, more than 15 years ago. The later speeding convictions for driving in 2013 and 2016 are for speeds only 15 kph over the posted limits.

[46] At the same time, there are important mitigating factors that must be considered:

(i) Prior to these convictions, Mr. Sheikh led a very pro-social life. Up to the time of the offences, he used his education and training to advance a successful career in business. He continues to be contributing member of his family and to make a difference in his community. The character letters suggest that he is a caring and kind person and role model to his nieces and nephews. This is all positive. I do not doubt the fairness or accuracy of the many positive things that have been said about him. These sorts of offences are frequently committed by individuals who are, similarly, otherwise law-abiding good citizens: Lacasse, at para. 73 and Ramage at paras. 74-75.

(ii) Mr. Sheikh has been under bail conditions since September 15, 2018, which is close to four years. His conditions have included that he remain in Ontario, the result of which was that he was unable to travel at all, including to British Columbia when his grandmother died in 2019. He has been required to live with his sureties. He has complied with all of the terms of his release, including that he abstain from the consumption of alcohol;

(iii) Mr. Sheikh has already been prohibited from driving for just under four years;

(iv) Mr. Sheikh appreciates the harm that he has done to the Gamut and Pascual families. While I did not hear him apologize or accept any personal responsibility for the poor choices he made, he did acknowledge the enormous hurt that he has caused. I accept that he is remorseful for what has happened;

(v) Mr. Sheikh has strong family and community support;

(vi) I accept that Mr. Sheikh’s mental health continues to be affected by the haunting memories of the collision;

(vii) The result of the pandemic is that the time that Mr. Sheikh will spend in custody will be particularly challenging. Restrictions are likely to continue to be in place including on programming and visits.

[47] The defence position is that Mr. Pascual’s driving contributed to the collision and that as a result, Mr. Sheikh’s moral blameworthiness is lower. While Mr. Pascual testified that he stopped before making the left turn, this was not borne out by the EDR, which showed that he never slowed down below 28 kph. Similarly, while he testified that he made a left turn signal, I was not able to conclude that he did so. He may or may not have. That said, there is no evidence that Mr. Pascual’s driving made any difference to Mr. Sheikh’s manner of driving, or that it contributed to the collision in any way. As I found, it was Mr. Sheikh’s speed and manner of driving that caused the collision. I am unable to find Mr. Sheikh is less morally blameworthy because of Mr. Pascual’s driving in these circumstances.

[48] I have considered counsel’s submission that Mr. Sheikh’s medical condition means that he is at a greater risk of complications were he to contract COVID-19. I accept this. I also accept that incarceration makes social distancing more difficult and that many of those in custody remain un-vaccinated, usually by choice. I am not inclined, however, to reduce the sentence I impose on Mr. Sheikh because he would likely have greater complications were he to become infected with the virus, and that his risk of infection is increased in jail. I reach this conclusion because Mr. Sheikh has chosen not to take the medically accepted best step to reduce his chance of contacting the virus. He has declined the vaccinations that have been available to him for months. That is, of course, his choice. But I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate for that unexplained choice to be considered a significant mitigating circumstance in this case.

The Appropriate Sentence

[49] In my view, this case requires the imposition of a penitentiary sentence in the range set out in Altiman and the many appeal cases summarized therein. Cases of impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death generally attract a substantial penitentiary term even when the offenders are of previous good character: R. v. Muzzo, 2016 ONSC 2068; R. v. Osman, 2019 ONSC 327 at para. 42. I am not persuaded that the circumstances in this case warrant departing from the usual range.

[50] When I consider all of the relevant factors, including Mr. Sheikh’s moral blameworthiness flowing from his drug and alcohol consumption, persistent racing and speeding, the devastating impact of his offences and the need for general deterrence and denunciation, I conclude that a sentence of five years in the penitentiary is fit. In reaching this view, I am mindful of the fact that, apart from these offences, Mr. Sheikh’s life has been extremely positive and pro-social, that he has excellent prospects for rehabilitation and that he seems to genuinely feel for those whose lives he has so devastated.

[51] Mr. Sheikh will be sentenced to five years for criminal negligence causing death (count 7), to five years concurrent for impaired driving causing death (count 1), to four years concurrent for criminal negligence causing bodily harm (count 8) and to four years concurrent for impaired driving causing bodily harm (count 2).

Ancillary Orders

[52] The Crown seeks a secondary DNA order. No objection was taken to this order by the defence and I am satisfied that it is appropriate.

[53] The more contentious ancillary order is respecting the driving prohibition. The Crown seeks a 10 year driving prohibition, in addition to the period of time for which Mr. Sheikh has already been prohibited from driving as a result of his bail condition. The defence submits that this is excessive. I agree.

[54] The purposes of a driving prohibition are to address community safety concerns, to form part of the punishment and to facilitate the offender’s successful reintegration into the community of licensed drivers. I adopt the factors set out by Durno J. in R. v. Bakai, [2010] O.J. No. 6076 at para. 43 as important to consider in determining the length of the prohibition:

1.The circumstances of the offence, including the blood alcohol level, the degree of impairment, the manner of driving and the number of victims. With regards to the number of victims it is not intended, and I agree with Mr. Doyle, that the number of victims should be used as a multiplier, but it is an important aggravating factor. When looking at the cases involving fatalities, there are only, I believe in the cases that I have now been referred to or looked at, two involving two individuals dying. Those are facts to be kept in mind when examining the other cases, that many of the others also involved serious bodily harm to one or more individuals.

2.Whether the offender has entered a plea of guilty and if so, was it an early plea?

3.Whether the offender has a previous Criminal Code record. If so, were the records for breaching court orders or administrative suspensions?

4.Whether the offender has a previous HTA record of convictions or other entries.

5.An important consideration in a case referred to counsel today, whether the offender has been diagnosed or clearly has an alcohol consumption problem, and if so, what if any steps have been taken to address the abuse? There is no evidence here to suggest that this individual has such a problem.

6.The offender's age.

7.In some of the cases, the occupation and in particular the impact of the prohibition on that employment.

8.Whether the offender was prohibited from driving as a term of bail. R. v. Pelicore, [1997] O.J. No. 226 (C.A.)

9. The length of the jail term, if any is imposed, is also taken into consideration in terms of assessing the length of the driving prohibition.

10.The Court of Appeal has also found whether or not the offender voluntarily stopped driving is a factor. R. v. Iafrate, [1999] O.J. No. 1789 (C.A.)

11.It may also be a factor whether or not public transit is available to the individual.

[55] The driving prohibition will commence at the end of the period of Mr. Sheikh’s incarceration. The period of time for which Mr. Sheikh has already been prohibited from driving as a result of his release conditions must be subtracted from the prohibition order that I determine is fit: Lacasse, at paras. 109-113; Altiman at para. 118

[56] Bearing the factors identified in Bakai, including the fact that Mr. Sheikh is being sentenced to 5 years in the penitentiary, that he has already been prohibited from driving for just over 3 years and 10 months and that his prior driving record is not particularly serious, a further 6 year driving prohibition, to commence after his sentence is served in jail, is fit.

J.M. Woollcombe J.

Released: July 21, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: CR 19-1618

DATE: 2021 07 21

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

AZAR SHEIKH

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Woollcombe J.

Released: July 21, 2021