Tom LeRoy

The accused, the CEO of a Shariah-compliant home financing company and the chair of its Shariah Ethics Board, were charged with theft, fraud, money laundering, and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act offences.

The charges arose after the company was ordered into receivership and the CEO used company funds to purchase over $2 million in gold and silver bullion, which he claimed was to pay the Ethics Board for past services in accordance with Islamic finance principles.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the mens rea for the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, as the CEO had an honest belief, based on the Mudarabah partnership structure and Shariah law, that he was authorized to use the funds for this purpose.

Both accused were acquitted of all charges.

Mario Inacio, 39, was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration following a Crown application under ss. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that Inacio met the criteria for dangerous offender designation, having committed serious personal injury offences including robbery, extortion, unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, threatening death, and robbery with an imitation firearm.

The decision was based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, a high likelihood of future violent reoffending, and the intractability of his conduct, despite some recent positive institutional behaviour.

The court concluded that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

The defendant, C.M.L., was convicted by a jury of abducting her own child in contravention of a custody order, contrary to s. 282 of the Criminal Code.

The court imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment, less time served, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence as paramount sentencing objectives.

The aggravating factors included the deliberate and ongoing nature of the offence, the defendant's persistent defiance of court orders, the lack of information regarding the child's safety and well-being, and the devastating impact on the child and the father.

The court declined to grant enhanced credit for pre-trial custody due to the defendant's continued concealment of the child.