Sharif Foda

The accused, charged with counselling murder and obstructing justice, brought a Garofoli application challenging a wiretap authorization.

He argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to disclose that the police informer had requested and received sentencing consideration.

The accused also alleged breaches of his s. 7 Charter rights due to deliberate police deception and a failure to video or audio record all interactions with the informer.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the omission in the ITO was inadvertent and that the warrant could still have issued if the omitted information had been included.

The court also held there was no constitutional duty to create video or audio records of all police interactions with the informer.

The accused, while in custody, counselled a fellow inmate and an undercover police officer to murder his ex-girlfriend to prevent her from testifying against him in an upcoming trial.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the fellow inmate, a 'Vetrovec' witness with a lengthy criminal record.

The court found the inmate's testimony credible and substantially corroborated by objective evidence, including a recorded phone call between the accused and the undercover officer.

The accused was found guilty of counselling murder and attempting to obstruct justice.

The accused was convicted at trial of failing to comply with Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) reporting requirements and a breach of Christopher's Law regarding provincial sex offender registry obligations.

The accused was bound by a 20-year SOIRA order from September 5, 2007, following conviction for sexual assault and possession of child pornography.

He failed to report two residential moves in the York Region between March and May 2015.

The Crown sought 45 days concurrent custody; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed 30 days custody to be served intermittently, finding that general and specific deterrence and public protection necessitated a custodial sentence despite the accused's seven-year compliance history.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) reporting requirement contrary to section 490.031(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, a sex offender bound by a 20-year SOIRA order, failed to report a change of address to the designated registration centre within the required seven-day period after moving from Toronto to Markham in York Region.

The Crown proved the mens rea element of the offence, establishing that the accused intentionally failed to report rather than merely acting carelessly.

The accused's defence of reasonable excuse—that he believed the SOIRA system would be automatically updated through his bail conditions—was rejected as neither credible nor legally sound.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.