Stefan Rinas

A 17-year-old defendant was charged with second-degree murder in the death of an 18-year-old who was fatally stabbed during a group altercation outside a nightclub.

The Crown conceded that the evidence did not support a murder charge and sought a conviction for manslaughter.

The defendant claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the defendant participated in escalating the initial conflict and used weapons when others did not, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court considered the group dynamic, the speed of events, and the defendant's age in applying a modified objective standard of reasonableness.

The defendant was acquitted of both murder and manslaughter.

The accused pleaded guilty to five counts of voyeurism, five counts of publishing voyeuristic recordings, and one count of breaching a release order.

Between 2016 and 2023, the accused installed hidden recording devices in the homes and vacation property of five victims, recording them in various states of undress.

He subsequently published these intimate images on cyber-exploitation websites, including the victims' real names.

The accused committed some offences while on bail for similar charges involving his step-sister.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8.5 years in the penitentiary, less pre-sentence custody, to be served consecutively to an existing sentence.

The sentence reflects the egregious nature of the offences, the serious breach of trust, the repeated violations of privacy, and the devastating impact on the victims.

The court sentenced Michael Alexander Llanos for multiple drug trafficking offences and possession of a prohibited weapon, following a judge-alone trial.

The decision reviews the facts, the offender’s background, the objectivity of the pre-sentence report, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The court found Mr. Llanos to be a mid-level fentanyl trafficker and imposed a global sentence of 5.5 years’ imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, with ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the gravity of fentanyl trafficking, the offender’s addiction and medical issues, and the harshness of his pre-sentence incarceration.

The court considered a Charter application by Douvainn Dean, who was charged with multiple offences including possession of a handgun, drugs, and a stolen vehicle.

The court found that the police lacked both subjective and objective grounds for Dean's detention, resulting in a violation of his section 9 Charter rights.

The court also addressed the issue of racial profiling and found no evidence that race or racial stereotypes motivated the police.

Ultimately, the evidence seized as a result of the detention was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found Michael Alexander Llanos guilty of possession of drugs and a prohibited weapon (black brass knuckles) for the purpose of trafficking, following a search of his apartment.

The case turned on circumstantial evidence, including the location and packaging of drugs, the presence of drug paraphernalia, and the nature of Llanos' relationship with his deceased girlfriend, Kyla Joyner.

The court rejected alternative theories that Joyner possessed the drugs for herself or for others without Llanos' knowledge, finding that the only reasonable inference was that Llanos had knowledge and control over the contraband.

Hearsay statements by Joyner were ruled inadmissible.

This decision addresses the admissibility of discreditable conduct evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution.

The court considered whether text messages and viva voce testimony about the accused’s relationship with the deceased co-accused, Kyla Joyner, were admissible to prove joint or constructive possession of drugs and weapons.

The court allowed the admission of certain text communications and limited testimony, finding their probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, especially in a judge-alone trial.

The ruling clarifies the application of the four-step framework for admitting discreditable conduct evidence and the importance of context in assessing control and knowledge in joint possession cases.

Maisum Ansari was charged with breaching a release order's curfew condition, obstructing a peace officer, and impersonation.

He pleaded guilty to obstruction and impersonation but not guilty to the breach.

The court found that the defendant violated his curfew by engaging in activities unrelated to work or direct travel to/from work, such as socializing at a parking lot, discussing an electric vehicle charger, and consuming alcohol at a friend's residence.

The court determined that the Crown proved both the actus reus and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant's asserted "lawful excuse" (lack of control, cost of alternative transport) was objectively unreasonable and disproven.

The defendant was found guilty of breaching his release order.

The applicant, Abdullahi Hashi, brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a search warrant.

The application raised three main issues: a facial attack on the warrant's description of a storage locker, a s. 7 Charter claim regarding lost video security footage, and a sub-facial s. 8 Charter claim arguing a lack of reasonable and probable grounds based on the 'three Cs' for confidential informers.

The court dismissed the application, finding the warrant's description adequate, the loss of video footage not due to unacceptable negligence and not prejudicial to the defence, and that the Information to Obtain provided sufficient credible and reliable evidence for the warrant to issue.

Mohammad Isaq Jahfari was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault (the latter stayed).

This decision outlines the sentencing reasons.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the offender's control over the vulnerable victim, escalation of intimacy, and grooming behaviour, as well as mitigating factors such as strong family support and a history as a productive member of society.

The court accepted the Crown and Defence's recommendation for a 178-day jail term (6 months minus 2 days) to avoid significant immigration consequences.

However, the court declined the defence's request for an exception to the s. 161 order that would allow unsupervised contact with family members under 16, citing the offender's lack of insight and the continued risk posed.

The accused, Mohammad Isaq Jahfari, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The complainant testified that the accused offered him a ride, then touched his thigh, kissed his head, forehead, cheek, and lips, and attempted to "groom" him.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and fabricated.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, rejecting the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent.

The court concluded that the touching was intentional, for a sexual purpose, and occurred in sexual circumstances, and that the accused's actions constituted grooming.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

Mohammad Jahfari was arrested and charged with sexual interference and sexual assault but was not brought to bail court within 24 hours, violating s. 503(1) of the Criminal Code and his Charter rights under ss. 7, 9, and 11(e).

He sought a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, exclusion of his statement and a sentence reduction.

The Crown conceded the Charter violations but opposed a stay.

The court found the police conduct to be an isolated incident, not warranting a stay or sentence reduction.

As a remedy for the Charter breaches, the court ordered the exclusion of the accused's statement to the police, finding a sufficient nexus between the breach and the evidence obtained.