Seth P. Weinstein

This is a sentencing decision for Jayson Jeyakanthan and Janson Jeyakanthan, who were found guilty of multiple firearm-related offences.

Jayson was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a loaded firearm, and careless storage of two firearms, while Janson was convicted of joint possession, carrying a concealed weapon as a party, careless storage of two firearms, and two counts of breach of recognizance.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles due to the public danger posed by the firearms.

Aggravating factors for Jayson included his criminal record, displaying a firearm in a crowded public place, and the impact on the victim.

For Janson, aggravating factors included being on bail and breaching its terms.

The court found minimal mitigating factors.

Jayson received a global sentence of six years, and Janson received a global sentence of three years, with specific allocations for each offence.

The decision also addressed pre-trial custody credits (Summers, Duncan, Downes), granting some enhanced credits for harsh detention conditions but limiting others due to the offenders' conduct, particularly egregious bail breaches.

Ancillary orders included DNA, lifetime weapons prohibitions, and forfeiture.

The defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder, following a shooting that killed two victims.

The Crown alleged the defendant hired a contract killer to murder the victims' son, a drug dealer who worked for the defendant.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the admitted killer, an unsavoury witness who had entered a plea deal.

The court applied the Vetrovec warning and found the witness's testimony required independent corroboration.

Concluding that the circumstantial evidence (cell phone records and GPS data) was weak and supported multiple innocent inferences, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant.

The accused brothers were involved in an altercation at a McDonald's where one displayed a firearm.

They fled and were subsequently arrested by police near an alleyway where two loaded handguns were found under a parked van.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 7, 9, and 10, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of the firearms.

The court found a breach of s. 9 for failing to bring the accused before a justice within 24 hours, and a breach of one accused's s. 10(b) rights due to delays in contacting his counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant test, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) and refused a stay of proceedings.

On the merits, one accused was acquitted of assault due to self-defence, and the other was acquitted of pointing a firearm.

Both were found guilty of careless storage and possession of the firearms based on circumstantial evidence, with one also convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.

The accused, David Crowe, was sentenced after being found guilty of criminal harassment, harassing communications, mischief, and multiple breaches of probation and release orders.

The Crown sought a global sentence of two years less a day in custody, while the defence requested a suspended sentence.

The court considered the severe and long-lasting impact on the victim, the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence, the deliberate and sophisticated nature of the harassment, and the repeated breaches of court orders.

Despite these aggravating factors, the court also weighed the accused's significant and genuine efforts at rehabilitation since his arrest, including sobriety and community engagement.

Ultimately, the court imposed concurrent conditional sentence orders of four months for the breaches and sixty days for impersonation, followed by a three-year probation order, noting that the accused had already served the equivalent of an 18-month sentence for the harassment counts through pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

A DNA order and a weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The young person, C.Z., pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing two deaths and one bodily harm.

The court considered the principles of youth sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, including the young person's diminished moral blameworthiness, high degree of responsibility, and numerous mitigating factors such as excellent prospects and genuine remorse.

The court determined that a non-custodial sentence would not meet the purposes and principles of youth sentencing, particularly the need for denunciation and meaningful consequences proportionate to the grave harm caused.

A custodial sentence was deemed necessary.

The defendant, Hamed Nadi, was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample after a Mandatory Alcohol Screening (MAS) demand.

The defence argued the demand was invalid due to a 6-minute delay and incorrect information provided by the officer regarding the consequences of refusal versus failing the test.

The court found the 6-minute delay reasonable for administrative tasks and training, and that the officer's incomplete information about consequences did not taint the demand, as the defendant's refusal was unequivocal and occurred both before and after the information was given.

The defendant was found guilty.

The applicant sought the return of a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee seized by the Toronto Police Service, arguing that its continued detention was not required for investigation, trial, or forfeiture proceedings under s. 490(11) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the vehicle was used in an assault and exploitation, and intended to seek forfeiture if the accused (D.G.) was convicted.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear the application, confirmed the applicant was the lawful owner and innocent of any complicity, and determined that the vehicle was not required for ongoing investigation or trial.

The court further concluded that any future forfeiture application by the Crown would inevitably be unsuccessful given the applicant's innocent third-party status under s. 490.4(3) of the Criminal Code.

The application for the return of the Jeep was allowed.

The appellants were convicted of agreeing to bribe a foreign public official, the Indian Minister of Civil Aviation, contrary to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, including unreasonable delay, lack of territorial jurisdiction, and the trial judge's refusal to declare a mistrial following late Crown disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the jurisdictional and delay arguments but allowed the appeal on the basis of the mistrial application.

The Court found that the Crown's late disclosure of communications with a key witness and information regarding a central defence exhibit impaired the overall fairness of the trial process.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, a dental hygienist, appealed the mandatory revocation of his registration for professional misconduct (sexual abuse of a patient, his eventual spouse).

The appeal challenged the Court of Appeal's prior decisions in Leering and Mussani, arguing that the "zero-tolerance" policy and mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code infringed sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that sexual abuse is established by the concurrence of a health professional-patient relationship and a sexual relationship, and that mandatory revocation does not violate Charter rights, as economic interests are not protected by sections 7 or 12, and the penalty is not cruel or unusual.

The court also clarified the narrow scope of the spousal exception.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order to surrender him for extradition to the United States on child sexual abuse charges.

The applicant argued the surrender was unreasonable due to a significant disparity in potential sentences (a 30-year mandatory minimum in the US versus a 90-day to 3-year range in Canada, where the Canadian mandatory minimum for the equivalent offence had been struck down as cruel and unusual punishment) and the potential for indefinite civil commitment in the US.

The Minister had obtained assurances from the US Department of Justice that the applicant would not face civil commitment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, affirming the Minister's decision as reasonable.

The court reiterated the high deference owed to the Minister in extradition matters, emphasizing that sentence disparity alone, absent extreme circumstances, does not "shock the conscience" of Canadians under section 7 of the Charter, especially when assurances mitigate other risks.

Alexandra Forrestall pleaded guilty to failing to stop after an accident resulting in death.

The primary issue at sentencing was whether the custodial portion of the sentence should be served in jail or conditionally in the community.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the profound loss of life and the accused's subsequent fabrication of events, and mitigating factors such as an early guilty plea, genuine remorse, youthful first offender status, positive character references, and significant mental health challenges exacerbated by the incident.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was legally available following the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in *R. v. Sharma* and was appropriate given the specific circumstances, including the accused's health vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Matthew Bouffard pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his infant daughter, Isabelle, who died at 27 days old from head injuries and suffered numerous other severe injuries including broken ribs, fractured clavicles, and fractured vertebrae.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the profound abuse of parental trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the multiple, severe injuries inflicted over time.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and mental health issues.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, and the defence sought five to six years.

The court imposed an eight-year penitentiary sentence, with 15 months of credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of six years and nine months.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual interference and sexual assault arising from allegations by a child complainant that he touched her vagina on multiple occasions and licked her vagina once while living in the same household as her mother’s common law spouse.

The court admitted the complainant’s videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code and assessed the evidence under the W(D.) framework, while also applying the common-sense approach to child testimony described by the Supreme Court.

Although the trial judge found the complainant careful, credible, and unaffected by malice, he also found the accused sincere, internally consistent, and capable of raising a reasonable doubt.

Because the Crown failed to disprove the accused’s denial beyond a reasonable doubt, verdicts of not guilty were entered on both counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000.

As a senior accountant at Payfare Inc., a financial technology company, the offender exploited a loophole in the company's banking portal to fraudulently transfer approximately $1.27 million to accounts in his name over a ten-month period.

The offender used the funds primarily for gambling, leisure, travel, and personal expenses.

Upon discovery, approximately $143,000 was recovered.

The offender subsequently entered into a civil settlement agreement with Payfare requiring payment of $85,000 over five years.

The court imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment, a four-year prohibition order under section 380.2 of the Criminal Code, and a restitution order of $100,000 to the insurance company.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft pleaded guilty to 60 charges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, including 58 counts of unlawfully importing vehicles that did not conform to prescribed vehicle emissions standards and two counts of providing misleading information.

The company admitted to installing defeat devices in approximately 128,000 diesel vehicles imported into Canada between 2008 and 2015, which allowed the vehicles to pass emissions testing while emitting substantially higher nitrogen oxide levels during normal driving conditions.

The court imposed a fine of $196,500,000, the largest environmental fine in Canadian history at that time, reflecting the severity of the deliberate deception, the environmental and health risks created, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The Crown applied for an order to retain seized material for an additional year in a complex criminal investigation involving Fortress Real Capital Inc. and related entities.

The investigation, initiated in 2018, concerned allegations of investor fraud through misrepresentation of property values and investment eligibility.

The court granted the application, finding the investigation to be complex due to the large volume of electronic and hard copy material, the need for professional assistance (computer experts, accountants), and significant delays caused by extensive solicitor-client privilege claims over seized documents.

The court emphasized that while asserting privilege is legitimate, it contributed to the complexity and delay, justifying further detention of the material until June 22, 2021.

The court dismissed an application by three individuals (two environmentalists and a former Volkswagen vehicle owner) seeking to participate as parties in the criminal prosecution of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft for violations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The applicants sought to present victim impact statements and make submissions regarding restitution, fines, and sentencing.

The court held that the applicants lacked standing to participate as parties, as the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has carriage of the prosecution and speaks on behalf of the public.

The court noted that while victim impact statements are permitted under the Criminal Code, there is no statutory foundation for victims to become quasi-parties to criminal proceedings.

The appellant, a dental hygienist, appealed the revocation of his license by the Discipline Committee after he provided dental hygiene treatment to his wife.

The Committee found this constituted professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code, which mandates license revocation for sexual abuse of a patient, defined to include sexual relations.

The appellant argued the mandatory revocation and public registry notation violated his and his wife's rights under sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no section 7 violation as there is no constitutional right to practice a profession, and no section 12 violation as the mandatory revocation and registry notation did not constitute cruel and unusual treatment.

The court noted the harshness of the result but held it was bound by the legislation as the government had not yet passed a proposed spousal exemption regulation for dental hygienists.

The United States requested the extradition of the applicant for alleged sexual offences.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the potential for indefinite civil commitment in Minnesota constituted an abuse of process.

The Crown challenged the court's jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the extradition judge's role is circumscribed to determining dual criminality under section 29 of the Extradition Act.

The court found no nexus between the potential foreign penalty and the fairness of the committal hearing, concluding that the issue of extreme potential consequences falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice at the surrender stage.

Robert Barra and Shailesh Govindia were convicted of agreeing to bribe the Indian Minister of Civil Aviation under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Barra, CEO of Cryptometrics US, retained Govindia to facilitate a $500,000 bribe for a facial recognition software contract with Air India, with potential for an additional $1.5 million.

Govindia, however, misappropriated the bribe funds, leading to the scheme's failure and no contract award.

The Crown sought 4 years for Barra and 3 years for Govindia, while the defence proposed 2 years for both.

Considering mitigating factors such as no prior criminal records, the unsuccessful nature of the bribe, and economic hardship, alongside aggravating factors like financial motivation and the seriousness of the offence, the court imposed a sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment for each offender.