COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-70000362-0000
DATE: 20220128
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
ABDULRAHMAN ABDULLAHI
Stephen Byrne, for the Crown
Jennifer Penman, for Mr. Abdullahi
HEARD: July 6; November 15; and December 21, 2021
M. Forestell J.
REASONS FOR SENTENCING
Overview
[1] Abdulrahman Abdullahi entered a guilty plea on July 6, 2021 to the charge of attempting to murder Joshua Ally by discharging a prohibited firearm. Mr. Abdullahi, who was 23 years-old at the time, shot 19 year-old Joshua Ally multiple times in the abdomen after Mr. Abdullahi and his friends confronted Mr. Ally and a group of friends in downtown Toronto after the Toronto Raptors won the NBA championship in 2019.
[2] The facts underlying the offence were admitted and contained in an agreed statement of facts. In addition, the Crown filed the video footage of the confrontation, the shooting and the apprehension of Mr. Abdullahi after the shooting. The Crown also filed social media posts of Mr. Abdullahi posing with firearms or imitation firearms with his friends.
[3] On behalf of Mr. Abdullahi, counsel filed an Enhanced Pre-Sentenced Report that sets out in detail the history and background of Mr. Abdullahi and the challenges that he has faced.
[4] The Crown seeks a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment before credit for presentence custody and an order delaying parole. Counsel for Mr. Abdullahi argues that a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Both counsel agree that Mr. Abdullahi should receive enhanced credit for the exceptionally harsh conditions of presentence custody but they differ on the amount of credit for such conditions.
[5] In these reasons, I will set out the circumstances of the offence including the impact on the victim and his family and the circumstances of Mr. Abdullahi before turning to my analysis.
Circumstances of the Offences
[6] On June 13, 2019 after the Toronto Raptors won the NBA championship, Mr. Ally, his then girlfriend (now wife), Jomana Bady, and some friends were in downtown Toronto with thousands of others celebrating the victory. They parked their car at 4:12 a.m. on Gould Street near Yonge Street. Almost immediately after Mr. Ally and his friends got out of the car, Mr. Ally was confronted by a group that included Mr. Abdullahi. The two groups were strangers to each other. The members of Mr. Abdullahi’s group questioned the members of Mr. Ally’s group in a confrontational manner. Mr. Ally was shoved and slapped. Mr. Ally then left the group and went to his car to retrieve a baseball bat to use in the event that he needed it for self-defence.
[7] As Mr. Ally went towards his car, he gestured at the group. Mr. Abdullahi followed Mr. Ally. Mr. Ally opened the trunk of his car and closed it without retrieving the bat. He then turned to face Mr. Abdullahi. Mr. Abdullahi immediately produced a handgun and fired it several times at Mr. Ally at point blank range. Mr. Ally collapsed and fell to the ground. Mr. Abdullahi ran a short distance. Ms. Bady ran to Mr. Ally. While Ms. Bady held Mr. Ally, Mr. Abdullahi returned and fired another volley of shots at Mr. Ally. Mr. Abdullahi acknowledged that he did so with the specific intent to kill Mr. Ally.
[8] Mr. Abdullahi left the scene after the second volley of shots, but he was followed by a citizen who had seen the shooting. That citizen directed the police to Mr. Abdullahi who was apprehended and arrested very soon after the shooting.
[9] In the video footage filed, Mr. Abdullahi is shown approaching Mr. Ally at the trunk of the car and shooting Mr. Ally as soon as he turns. Mr. Ally can be seen to have his hands open and extended. Mr. Abdullahi is also clearly shown running back to Mr. Ally and shooting Mr. Ally as he lay on the ground with his girlfriend holding him.
[10] After shooting Mr. Ally the second time, Mr. Abdullahi can be seen joining one of his friends and then running away. After running a short distance, he is seen to slow to a walk. As police converge on the scene, he is visible on video directing them back to Mr. Ally as he walks with his friend around the corner.
[11] Joshua Ally was rushed to the hospital where it was determined that he had been shot five times. He sustained the following injuries:
i. His liver was ruptured, which required that portions of it be surgically removed;
ii. his bladder was ruptured and required surgical repair;
iii. the L1 and L5 vertebral bones were damaged, which resulted in nerve damage due to the proximity of this injury to the spine
iv. the bone in his right arm was shattered, requiring the installation of a plate;
v. his sciatic nerve was damaged; and
vi. a bullet fragment remains lodged in his pelvic region.
[12] Mr. Ally underwent three operations in the first forty-eight hours after the shooting. He continues to receive physiotherapy for the injuries he sustained on June 14, 2019.
[13] Mr. Ally’s wife, parents, sister and aunts filed victim impact statements. Ms. Bady’s statement sets out the impact on her and on Mr. Ally. Mr. Ally takes chronic pain medication and has been affected physically, mentally and emotionally. Ms. Bady was also traumatized by the incident. In addition to her fear for Mr. Ally, Ms. Bady was in the line of fire for the second volley of shots by Mr. Abdullahi. She continues to feel unsafe.
[14] Mr. Ally’s parents, sister and aunts described the tremendous impact of the offence on the entire family. Joshua Ally’s recovery from his injuries was slow and painful. It was devastating for all of them to see him so badly hurt and suffering.
[15] Ms. Jacquie Pemberton, M.S.W., R.S.W. prepared an Enhanced Pre-sentence Report that was filed with the Court. In the Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report, Mr. Abdullahi described the circumstances of the offence to the author of the report. He reported that he was drunk and high on Percocet at the time of the offence. Mr. Abdullahi reported to the author of the report that he had consumed $500 worth of alcohol with his friends and an unspecified amount of Percocet.
[16] Mr. Abdullahi said that he heard the victim, Mr. Ally, say “I’m going to pack these guys” and Mr. Abdullahi believed that Mr. Ally would harm them. He believed that Mr. Ally was going to the trunk of his car for a knife or a gun. Mr. Abdullahi said, “where I am from, it’s a gun you are going for”. When Mr. Ally turned quickly around, Mr. Abdullahi was fearful and shot him instinctively. He had no recollection of returning to shoot Mr. Ally after Mr. Ally was on the ground and he had no explanation for doing so.
[17] In response to this account contained in the report, the Crown filed the video of Mr. Abdullahi being read his rights to counsel after his arrest. The Crown’s submission was that the video recorded shortly after the shooting, viewed in conjunction with the video of the shooting, contradicts Mr. Abdullahi’s account of being drunk and high at the time of the shooting.
[18] There is no direct evidence of Mr. Abdullahi being impaired by drugs or alcohol at the time of the offence. Having reviewed the video evidence, I find that it does not support the conclusion that Mr. Abdullahi was significantly impaired at the time of the offence. Mr. Abdullahi is clearly shown on the video of the shooting putting away his gun and slowing to a walk as the police arrived and he attempted to leave the scene. He gestured in a way that directed the police to the victim (and away from him). These deliberate actions to avoid apprehension are not consistent with a person who is “drunk and high”. The video recording taken a short time after he was arrested, similarly supports the conclusion that Mr. Abdullahi was not impaired to any significant extent.
Circumstances of Mr. Abdullahi
[19] Mr. Abdullahi was 23 years-old at the time of the offence. He is 26 years-old now. He has no prior criminal record.
[20] The Enhanced Pre-sentence Report sets out Mr. Abdullahi’s family history in detail. He was born in Saudi Arabia. He identifies as a heterosexual Black man of Somali heritage and Muslim faith. He is the youngest of seven siblings. His parents moved from Somalia to Saudi Arabia before Mr. Abdullahi was born. They emigrated to Canada when Mr. Abdullahi was 2 ½ years old. About three years after the family came to Canada, Mr. Abdullahi’s father moved back to Saudi Arabia. His father returned for visits to Canada in the summers for some period of time.
[21] Mr. Abdullahi grew up in the Jane and Shoreham neighbourhood. The report describes the desensitization experienced by Mr. Abdullahi as a result of hearing gunshots in the neighbourhood on a regular basis. He was also exposed to drug dealing and other criminal activity which he normalized.
[22] Mr. Abdullahi’s older sisters were central to his upbringing. They also reported that they felt fearful in the neighbourhood. Mr. Abdullahi’s sister observed that Mr. Abdullahi was defensive from a young age.
[23] Because of her financial struggles as a single mother of seven children, Mr. Abdullahi’s mother was not able to move the family out of the neighbourhood. Mr. Abdullahi’s older brothers came into conflict with the law. Mr. Abdullahi’s mother sent Mr. Abdullahi to live with his father in Saudi Arabia after he completed grade 5 because she feared that he would come into conflict with the law as his older brothers had done. After doing well in school in the early grades, Mr. Abdullahi had begun to lose confidence at school in grade 5 and had a poor relationship with his homeroom teacher.
[24] Mr. Abdullahi completed grades 6 to 10 in Saudi Arabia. He did well in school in Saudi Arabia. However, he remained in Toronto after returning for the summer after grade 10. He did not feel that his father wanted him in Saudi Arabia. He attended Eastern Canada High school after his return and completed seven courses. He attended Westview Centennial Secondary School for grade 12 and his grades declined. He failed some courses and began skipping school. However, he was determined to complete high school and did so in 2014.
[25] Mr. Abdullahi was diagnosed with epilepsy in 2012 after experiencing a number of seizures. He was prescribed medication and also began using marijuana on a daily basis to lessen the seizures. He worked in a variety of jobs, but his seizures made it difficult to maintain employment.
[26] Mr. Abdullahi’s epilepsy has worsened while he has been in custody. Stress triggers his seizures and he has experienced seizures prior to court appearances. He continues to take his medication. Despite his worsening condition, he has not seen a neurologist to review the medication. He experienced one seizure that caused him to strike his head and face on the toilet in his cell, knocking out teeth. The dental plate that has been provided to allow him to eat solid food poses a choking risk.
[27] Mr. Abdullahi reported that his substance use increased from the time he first began using substances, at age 16 or 17, to the time of the offence. Prior to the offence he was regularly using alcohol and Percocet.
[28] Mr. Abdullahi’s interactions with the police and the impact of those interactions are also described in the report. He was frequently carded by the police and described the practice as degrading. He and his family also described a police search of the family home as part of an investigation of his brother. All occupants of the home were handcuffed and Mr. Abdullahi’s mother, a Muslim woman, was not permitted to cover herself. The police did not find any illicit items but arrested Mr. Abdullahi’s brother and told Mr. Abdullahi that he would be arrested next.
[29] Mr. Abdullahi reported that he was attracted to guns because of the culture he grew up in. He also reported that he felt safer and powerful when he carried a gun. Mr. Abdullahi reported that he had obtained the gun he was carrying the night he shot Mr. Ally about two to three months earlier. He reported that he had never fired the gun before that night.
[30] Mr. Abdullahi expressed remorse in the presentence report and in his statement to the Court. He acknowledged the impact of his actions on the victim, the family of the victim and on his own family.
[31] Letters of support were filed from the Somali Women and Children’s Support Network, where Mr. Abdullahi volunteered in the afterschool youth program and from Midaynta Community Services, where Mr. Abdullahi participated and volunteered in programs. Both organizations offered continuing support to Mr. Abdullahi and his family.
Legal Principles and Analysis
Purpose and Principles
[32] In considering the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Mr. Abdullahi I have considered the general purposes, principles and objectives of sentencing, set out in the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 . The fundamental principle of sentencing set out in s. 718.1 of the Code is that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[33] There is no question that the offence committed by Mr. Abdullahi is extremely serious and his degree of responsibility or moral blameworthiness is high. The offence of attempted murder requires that the offender have the specific intent to kill. In the case of R. v. Logan,[^1] Chief Justice Lamer described the offence of attempted murder as follows:
The stigma associated with a conviction for attempted murder is the same as it is for murder. Such a conviction reveals that although no death ensued from the actions of the accused, the intent to kill was still present in his or her mind. The attempted murderer is no less a killer than a murderer: he may be lucky -- the ambulance arrived early, or some other fortuitous circumstance -- but he still has the same killer instinct. Secondly, while a conviction for attempted murder does not automatically result in a life sentence, the offence is punishable by life and the usual penalty is very severe.
[34] In R. v. McArthur,[^2] Justice Doherty similarly wrote that, “The moral culpability of the attempted murderer is at least equal to that of a murderer. He or she avoids a murder conviction and the automatic sentence of life imprisonment not because of any mitigating factor, but because through good fortune, the victim was not killed.”
[35] Section 718 of the Criminal Code identifies the objectives of sentencing, including denunciation, specific and general deterrence, separation of the offender from society, the rehabilitation of the offender and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[36] In sentencing for this serious offence of violence, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence are paramount. Rehabilitation of Mr. Abdullahi, however, remains a relevant objective of sentencing, particularly because of his youth and the absence of any prior criminal record.
[37] The sentencing objective of promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledging the harm done to the victim and the community is also important in this case. As I have stated, the harm done to Joshua Ally and his family is extremely serious. In addition, the community has been harmed by this offence. It occurred in a crowded downtown area during a community celebration. Gun violence impacts the whole community because it deprives citizens of their sense of safety and security.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
[38] In arriving at an appropriate sentence, s. 718.2 of the Code directs that I take into account other principles as well, including that a sentence may be increased or decreased depending upon the presence of any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.
[39] There are several aggravating factors in this case. Mr. Abdullahi took a loaded gun to a crowded public event. He fired multiple shots at the victim. In addition to the profound harm caused to the victim and his family, Mr. Abdullahi put other members of the public at risk of death or serious injury. Ms. Bady, in particular, was at great risk.
[40] Mitigating factors are that Mr. Abdullahi is a youthful first offender who has exhibited remorse for his conduct by his guilty plea. He has had a difficult childhood and adolescence growing up in an underserved area and experiencing poverty and systemic racism.
Parity and the Range of Sentence
[41] The principle of parity demands that the sentence I impose should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances.
[42] There is a broad range of sentence for the offence of attempted murder with a firearm. In R. v. Guedez-Infante,[^3] our Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment imposed on a youthful first offender who shot the victim in a public place and left him with a disability. In R. v. Thompson,[^4] a sentence of 12 years was upheld for a very serious shooting committed in a public place by a person with a lengthy criminal record.
[43] In the case of R. v. Maragh,[^5] the offender shot the victim four times at close range. The offence took place in a high school gymnasium and a bystander was grazed with a bullet. The victim lost a kidney and part of a lung and suffered lasting effects of the shooting. The offender was a 21 year-old man with a criminal record. Glass J. imposed a sentence of 12 years for the attempted murder, but he imposed a further six years for the firearms charges and the charges resulting from the police chase, for a global sentence of 18 years. This was upheld on appeal.
[44] Of the cases provided to me by counsel, the case of R. v. Brown[^6] is most similar to the case before me with respect to the circumstances of the offence. In Brown, the offender had exchanged words with the victim and then produced a handgun and shot the victim. Mr. Brown shot the victim twice while they faced each other. After the victim fell to the ground, Mr. Brown shot the victim three to four more times, principally in the victim’s back. The victim was left paralyzed from the waist down. The offender, Mr. Brown, like Mr. Abdullahi, was 23 at the time of the offence and was 25 years-old at the time of sentencing. Unlike Mr. Abdullahi, he did not plead guilty; he expressed no remorse for his actions, and he had a criminal record dating back to when he was 13 years-old. There was no evidence of any rehabilitative potential. Justice Nordheimer imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. In upholding the sentence, the Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Nordheimer, that the serious concern of growing gun violence in Toronto is a necessary and proper consideration on sentence.
[45] The range of sentence for the offence of attempted murder with a firearm in circumstances where the offence takes place in a crowded public area is from 10 years to life depending on the circumstances of the offender.
[46] It is a recognized principle of sentencing that where a penitentiary sentence must be imposed on a youthful first offender, the sentence should be as short as possible.[^7] The Court of Appeal has held that sentences at the lower end of the range may be appropriate for youthful first offenders with good prospects for rehabilitation.[^8]
Enhanced Pre-sentence Report
[47] The Enhanced Presentence Report in this case provides social context evidence that I have relied on in assessing Mr. Abdullahi’s prospects for rehabilitation.
[48] Ms. Pemberton, in her report, sets out factors that contributed to Mr. Abdullahi’s commission of this offence. Socio-economic factors and family dynamics are significant issues for Mr. Abdullahi. His relationship with his father was damaged by his father’s abandonment of the family and the poverty that he felt resulted from his father’s lack of support. The family’s move to Jane and Shoreham and his experience of growing up with crime and gun violence contributed to Mr. Abdullahi feeling unsafe and hypervigilant. Ms. Pemberton refers to a 2019 report that identifies neighbourhood crime as a risk factor for poor mental health and the development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She also points to Mr. Abdullahi’s negative experiences with the police as contributing to his low self-esteem.
[49] The report concludes that Mr. Abdullahi’s “potential is evident but so are the impacts of a multitude of issues”. An area of concern identified in the report is Mr. Abdullahi’s lack of insight and simplistic explanation as to why he obtained a firearm.
[50] I found the report to be appropriately objective and balanced. Ms. Pemberton was careful to identify the sources of the information provided to her and to identify where the source was the perceptions and beliefs of Mr. Abdullahi. Ms. Pemberton offered the opinion that Mr. Abdullahi ‘had potential’ but she was also careful to identify the obvious area of concern with respect to Mr. Abdullahi’s limited insight into his possession of a firearm.
[51] I accept that Mr. Abdullahi has rehabilitative potential. I reach this conclusion not only because of the report, but because of Mr. Abdullahi’s academic record, his lack of a criminal record and his community support.
[52] Mr. Abdullahi’s educational history in finishing high school demonstrates that when he applies himself to school, he has the ability to do well. His involvement in community organizations and the continuing support of his family and others in the community show that he has a pro-social support network.
Collateral Consequences: Mr. Abdullahi’s Epilepsy
[53] A further consideration in sentencing in this case is Mr. Abdullahi’s medical condition. I have considered Mr. Abdullahi’s seizure disorder and the impact it will have on him during his imprisonment. A collateral consequence of a sentence may result in a reduction of that sentence to reflect that the impact of the sentence will be more significant on the particular offender.[^9]
[54] A collateral consequence is a factor that is neither aggravating nor mitigating. It may only be considered to a limited extent and cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where it becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender.[^10] I have considered the evidence that incarceration will be particularly onerous for Mr. Abdullahi because of his seizure disorder.
Conclusion on Length of Imprisonment
Appropriate sentence
[55] The aggravating factors in this case of the extreme violence, the impact on the victim and his family and the risk to members of the public place this case at the high end of seriousness. A brutal and senseless shooting like the one in this case must attract a substantial sentence. Gun violence must be firmly denounced and those who carry, brandish and discharge guns must be deterred.
[56] The sentence that I impose, however, must not crush the spirit of Mr. Abdullahi or destroy his hope of rehabilitation. Mr. Abdullahi’s circumstances — particularly his youth, his remorse and the lack of a prior record — mitigate the sentence and move it out of the high end of the range suggested by the Crown. Mr. Abdullahi’s medical condition operates to a limited extent to further reduce the sentence.
[57] The sentence that in my view balances all these considerations is one of 14 years’ imprisonment before consideration for exceptionally harsh conditions of presentence custody.
Harsh Conditions of Pre-sentence Custody
[58] In R. v. Marshall, [^11] the Court of Appeal has reiterated that exceptionally harsh conditions of presentence custody should be taken into account and recognized by reducing the sentence to a limited extent.
[59] In this case, the Crown concedes that the conditions of Mr. Abdullahi’s incarceration have been exceptionally harsh. The Crown suggested a reduction in the range of 16 months. Counsel for Mr. Abdullahi submitted that a reduction of 25.5 months was appropriate.
[60] Mr. Abdullahi has been in custody through the COVID-19 pandemic. There have been frequent and lengthy lockdowns. During lockdowns there was limited access to showers, phones and exercise. Books were unavailable for eight months. Mr. Abdullahi has been isolated from his family and community support. Mr. Abdullahi has had seizures while in pre-sentence custody and it has been difficult for him to access medical and dental care.
[61] Since September 3, 2021 Mr. Abdullahi has been held at the Toronto East Detention Centre where he has been triple bunked in a cell designed to hold two people.
[62] The court in Marshall said that it was not necessarily inappropriate to quantify the impact of the harsh conditions. In this case, I find that in the interests of transparency, the impact of the harsh conditions should be quantified. I find that Mr. Abdullahi’s sentence should be reduced by 18 months in consideration of the onerous conditions including COVID-19.
[63] This leaves a sentence of 12 years and 6 months before statutory credit for pre-sentence custody.
[64] Statutory credit at 1.5 to 1 for the presentence custody is just under four years, leaving just over eight years and half years left to serve.
Delayed Parole
[65] The Crown also seeks an order under s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code that Mr. Abdullahi be required to serve one-half of his sentence before he is eligible to be released on parole.
[66] The leading case on delayed parole is the case of R. v. Zinck.[^12] In the recent case of R. v. Kawal,[^13] Justice Harris summarized the principles set out in Zinck, as follows:
i. Delaying parole should not be ordinary or routine. Nor should it be applied in an automatic manner. The provision should ‘be invoked only on the basis of demonstrated need’. It is a special, additional form of punishment. The prosecution bears the burden of proof (Zinck at paras. 29-31).
ii. The trial judge should first determine the length of the sentence based on the usual sentencing principles (paras. 24, 30, 33).
iii. In considering delayed parole, the judge must give priority to deterrence and denunciation as commanded by Section 743.6(2). Rehabilitation and other factors are subordinated (para. 30).
iv. Finally, the judge, ought only to delay parole if it is viewed as necessary in order to fulfill the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. Justice LeBel refers to this as a double weighing exercise. Deterrence and denunciation are considered a second time, this time with respect to the delayed parole question (paras. 31, 33).
[67] In Kawal, at paragraph 94, Justice Harris observed that s.743.6 subordinates rehabilitation but does not extinguish it.
[68] I do not find in the case before me that it is necessary for parole to be delayed in order to fulfill the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. Mr. Abdullahi is being sentenced to a significant penitentiary term and he has spent a significant amount of time in pre-sentence custody. Both the remaining sentence and the presentence custody advance the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. There is no demonstrated need for an additional form of punishment.
Conclusion
[69] I therefore sentence Mr. Abdullahi to imprisonment for 14 years before credit for presentence custody. With credit of 18 months for harsh conditions, the sentence is reduced to 12 and half years. Mr. Abdullahi has served 959 actual days of presentence custody. Credit at 1.5 to 1 results in credit of 1,439 days. This leaves 3,123 days left to serve or eight years and 203 days.
Ancillary orders
[70] There will be a weapons prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life.
[71] Attempted murder is a primary designated offence under the Criminal Code. I therefore make the order that Mr. Abdullahi provide such number of samples of bodily substances that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.
[72] I further order, under s. 743.21, that Mr. Abdullahi have no contact with: Joshua Ally, Jumana Bady, Aras Reisardenkani, Andrew Boyake, Tyvari Taylor-Morgan, Tarriq Jackson, Darnell Cooper or Damian Small.
M. Forestell J.
Released: January 28, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-70000362-0000
DATE: 20220128
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
ABDULRAHMAN ABDULLAHI
REASONS FOR SENTENCING
M. Forestell J.
Released: January 28, 2022
[^1]: 1990 84 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 731 at p. 743
[^2]: (2004), 2004 8759 (ON CA), 182 C.C.C. (3d) 230 at para. 47
[^3]: 2009 ONCA 739
[^4]: 2009 ONCA 243
[^5]: 2004 CarswellOnt 342
[^6]: 2009 ONCA 563, reviewing [2007] O.J. No. 5659 (ONSC)
[^7]: R. v. Vandale, 1974 1610 (ON CA), [1974], O.J. No. 1047 (C.A.)
[^8]: R. v. Green, [1982] O.J. No. 2504; R. v. Hayman, 1999 3710 (ON CA), [1999] O.J. No. 1308; R. v. Priest, 1996 1381 (ON CA), [1996] O.J. No. 3369
[^9]: R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34 at para. 48; R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739 (S.C.C.), at para. 11; R. v. Bunn (1997), 1997 22728 (MB CA), 118 Man. R. (2d) 300 (Man. C.A.), at para. 23; R. v. Bunn, 2000 SCC 9, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 183 (S.C.C.) ("Bunn (SCC)"), at para. 23; Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 50, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 289 (S.C.C.)
[^10]: Suter, supra, at para. 56
[^11]: 2021 ONCA 344
[^12]: 2003 SCC 6, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 41 (S.C.C.)
[^13]: 2018 ONSC 7531