Siavosh Pashang

The accused, Curtis Beckles, was tried on two counts of failing to comply with a probation order by not reporting as directed.

The Crown argued the accused knowingly or recklessly breached the order.

The defence contended that transportation issues and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable excuse or negated mens rea.

The court applied the subjective mens rea standard from R. v. Zora, finding that the Crown proved the accused's knowledge and intent.

The court dismissed the "reasonable excuse" defence, noting a lack of evidentiary support for the claims, and found the accused guilty on both counts.

A.A. was found guilty after trial of numerous offences against his intimate partner, Y.L., including arson endangering life and property, aggravated assault, mischief, uttering a death threat, and voyeurism, along with subsequent breaches of court orders and criminal harassment.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the pattern of abuse, the profound impact on the victims, lack of insight, and planned nature of the offences, as well as mitigating factors including no prior criminal record and personal tragedies.

The court also considered the collateral consequence of A.A. contracting COVID-19 in pre-sentence custody and the harsh conditions of detention.

A total sentence of eight years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, resulting in a further 34 months to serve.

Ancillary orders for DNA sample, weapons prohibition, and communication prohibition were also made.

The accused pleaded guilty to luring a 15-year-old victim, making sexually explicit material available to that victim, sexually assaulting that victim, and luring a police officer posing as a 14-year-old boy.

The offences involving the actual victim occurred between January and September 2016 when the victim was 15 and the accused was 35.

The accused groomed the victim through social media, provided gifts and alcohol, and engaged in repeated sexual conduct including unprotected anal penetration.

The luring of the undercover officer occurred between August 2016 and January 2018.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, finding that deterrence, denunciation, and separation from society were the primary sentencing principles.

The court also imposed SOIRA registration for life, a section 109 weapons prohibition, DNA order, and section 161 prohibitions for 10 years.

Following conviction for robbery while armed with a handgun and having face masked, the court imposed a sentence of three and a half years in penitentiary plus enhanced credit for pre-trial custody totaling approximately six years.

The court balanced serious aggravating factors including the use of a firearm in a public place, careful planning, and significant victim impact against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, Indigenous heritage, educational achievements, and future prospects.

The court applied Gladue principles while recognizing that denunciation and deterrence remain paramount for firearm-related offences.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, and having his face masked while committing an indictable offence.

The defence conceded all elements except identity.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence from a white t-shirt found at the scene, witness descriptions, and testimony from two unsavoury witnesses with significant credibility issues.

The court found the accused guilty of armed robbery and masking his face, but not guilty of the firearm charge due to a statutory interpretation issue regarding section 85(3) of the Criminal Code.

The defence applied to exclude evidence of prior discreditable conduct, known as the "Austin incident," in a murder and aggravated assault trial involving Tyrone Chambers and Joshua Warner.

The Austin incident, a minor assault accompanied by a threat to shoot, occurred shortly before the main shootings.

The defence argued its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The Crown contended the incident was relevant to the accused's knowledge of each other's gun possession, their willingness to back each other up, and the overall narrative of the night's events, forming part of a continuing transaction.

Applying the R. v. Handy test for similar fact evidence, the court treated the Austin incident as prior discreditable conduct but found its high probative value, particularly concerning narrative, the accused's knowledge and state of mind, Section 21 party liability, and self-defence, greatly outweighed the limited moral and reasoning prejudice.

The court ruled the evidence admissible.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and threatening bodily harm arising from an alleged altercation on September 4, 2016.

The complainant suffered a significant incised wound to his left arm requiring over 60 stitches.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's identification of the accused as the perpetrator.

However, the complainant had initially provided police with a false identification, claiming an unknown black male was responsible, later recanting this account after speaking with his sister.

The court found the complainant's identification of the accused was rendered problematic by this initial false identification and was uncorroborated despite multiple witnesses present at the scene.

The court concluded that in the absence of supporting evidence and given the radically inconsistent statements regarding the perpetrator's identity, reasonable doubt existed as to whether the accused was responsible for the injuries.

Three accused were tried on charges of robbery with a firearm, disguise with intent, possession of property obtained by crime, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and cannabis.

The Crown withdrew certain charges at trial.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove robbery with a firearm but established theft over $5,000.

Evidence from a recorded three-way phone call and text messages demonstrated that one accused orchestrated the theft with the store employee.

The court acquitted all accused of the drug trafficking charges due to insufficient evidence of knowledge and control, as multiple household members had access to the bedroom where drugs were found.