Walter Fox

This is a sentencing decision for Sakia Mojadiddi, who pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000, defrauding 47 victims of over $1 million over a decade.

The fraud involved falsely promising refugee sponsorship through a charitable organization, exploiting vulnerable individuals and abusing a position of trust.

The Crown sought 4-4.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year prohibition on managing others' property, restitution of $946,083.99, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $1,077,584.00, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale frauds, finding the sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's blameworthiness, while also considering mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, age, and health, but not reducing the sentence further due to COVID-19 given measures in federal institutions.

The appellant was convicted of causing unnecessary suffering and abandoning an animal in distress after dumping a live puppy in a garbage bin.

He appealed his conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his trial lawyer failed to properly prepare him and his witnesses, compromised their relationship, and misunderstood the law.

He also sought an extension of time to appeal his sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application for an extension of time, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court also dismissed the conviction appeal, concluding the appellant failed to establish the material facts underlying his claims of ineffective assistance and that trial counsel's strategic decisions fell within the standard of reasonable professional judgment.

Sentencing of four offenders convicted of multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, money laundering, and committing offences for a criminal organization.

The offenders orchestrated a sophisticated, multi-million dollar fraud scheme targeting the Canada Small Business Financing Program and several major banks using sham construction companies.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from 14 months to 8 years, along with significant restitution orders and fines in lieu of forfeiture.

The applicant, charged with 11 counts of fraud, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued the delay was justified due to the case's complexity and transitional exceptional circumstances.

The court agreed, finding the volume of disclosure, number of witnesses, and nature of the fraud allegations made the case particularly complex.

Alternatively, the court found transitional exceptional circumstances applied, as the Crown reasonably relied on the previous law and the applicant's actions contributed to the delay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The defendants were charged with multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, laundering proceeds of crime, and committing offences for a criminal organization in relation to a scheme to fraudulently obtain Canada Small Business Financing Program loans from various banks.

The Crown alleged that the defendants used sham corporations, forged financial documents, and inflated or fabricated invoices for leasehold improvements and equipment to deceive the banks into advancing loan funds, which were then laundered among the defendants.

The court found that Marshall Kazman and Gad Levy orchestrated the scheme and were guilty of fraud, money laundering, and the criminal organization offence.

Ali Vaez Tehrani and Madjid Vaez Tehrani were found guilty of fraud on specific counts but acquitted of the criminal organization charge.

Armand Levy, Ekaterina Chapkina, and Kamyar Ghatan were acquitted of all charges.

The accused was convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals under sections 446(1) and 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a protracted trial.

The accused maintained approximately 107 cats in severely neglected conditions, resulting in widespread disease, suffering, and the eventual euthanization of all but one animal.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of four to six months imprisonment followed by three years probation, a DNA data banking order, and a lifetime prohibition on pet ownership.

The accused sought a non-custodial disposition.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, 100 hours of community service, and a restriction to no more than two domestic animals at any time, rejecting both custodial sentencing and the lifetime pet prohibition.

The accused was charged with cruelty to animals under sections 445.1(1)(a) and 446(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

At the time of police intervention on April 24, 2011, the accused had at least 107 cats living in her home in filthy, disease-ridden conditions.

The cats suffered from malnutrition, dehydration, upper respiratory infections, urine and fecal scalding, alopecia, periodontal disease, and genetic defects from inbreeding.

The court found that the accused's conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person.

The mens rea of the offences was established on a modified objective test: the Crown proved that pain, suffering, and injury were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the accused's failure to provide adequate food, water, shelter, and care.

The accused's "colour of right" defence failed as no reasonable person could have believed the conditions were acceptable.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The applicants, charged with defrauding a bank of over $1.8 million, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total time from charge to trial was approximately four years.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that while the 22 months of institutional delay exceeded the administrative guidelines, the delay was not unreasonable given the complexity of the case, the involvement of multiple accused, and the significant delay caused by the actions of the co-accused.

The court also found no meaningful prejudice arising from the delay itself.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with arson with disregard for human life and arson for a fraudulent purpose following an explosion and fire that destroyed a restaurant.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an unsavoury witness who claimed the accused confessed to setting the fire, as well as expert evidence regarding the fire's origin.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning to the witness's testimony and found it unreliable without sufficient corroboration.

The expert evidence was deemed equivocal.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the fire, resulting in acquittals on both counts.