Yonatan Eshetu

This sentencing decision addresses the possession of a stolen vehicle valued over $5,000 by Kamran Mughal, who pled guilty to one count amidst a broader investigation into vehicle trafficking.

The court carefully considered the joint submission for a conditional sentence of six months, balancing the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s lack of prior record, and his recent severe gunshot injuries.

The court declined to consider additional aggravating facts read into the record due to the defence’s successful application to exclude them.

The decision highlights the application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance on joint submissions and sentencing principles, including proportionality, judicial restraint, and individualized sentencing.

The sentence imposed includes house arrest, curfew, GPS monitoring, and probation with conditions addressing substance abuse and avoidance of the offence location.

The Ontario Court of Justice declined to accept a joint sentencing submission of a six-month conditional sentence for an offender who pleaded guilty to possession of stolen motor vehicles over $5,000.

The court expressed serious concerns that the proposed sentence was too lenient given the prevalence of vehicle theft in the Greater Toronto Area and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court ordered the Crown to obtain victim impact statements, provide detailed information on the value and recovery of all vehicles involved, and produce police statistics on automobile theft prevalence, investigations, and resources in Toronto and the GTA, pursuant to s. 723 of the Criminal Code and the procedure outlined in R. v. Anthony Cook.

This sentencing decision addresses a young adult offender who pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm into a public place and armed robbery.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors, including the dangerous use of a firearm in a public establishment, against significant mitigating factors such as the offender's genuine remorse, positive pre-sentence report, challenging upbringing, and guilty pleas entered despite triable issues.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of two years less one day, comprising twelve months imprisonment followed by a twelve-month less one day conditional sentence order, plus a three-year probation order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The sentence was noted as being at the very low end of the range for such offences, justified by the unique mitigating circumstances.

This is a sentencing decision following the conviction of S.S. for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and making sexually explicit material available to a child, involving his biological daughter.

The offences occurred over approximately three years when the victim was between five and eight years old, constituting an extreme breach of trust.

The Crown sought an eight-year global sentence, while the Defence proposed three to four years.

The court imposed a global sentence of seven years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the severity and duration of the abuse and the profound impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's first-time offender status, young age at the time of the offences, and family support, but these were balanced against the lack of remorse.

Ancillary orders, including DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, communication bans, and a tailored s. 161 order, were also imposed.

Amerullah Habib, father of convicted firearm offender Rehan Habib, applied under s. 490.4(3) of the Criminal Code for the return of a Toyota Corolla, which was deemed offence-related property.

The applicant asserted a lawful interest in the vehicle, claiming he paid for it, had keys, and used it as a family vehicle, and that he was innocent of any complicity in his son's offence.

The court found that the applicant had established lawful entitlement to possession of the vehicle, based on his uncontradicted evidence of payment and shared use, and that he was innocent of complicity.

The court emphasized that morally innocent third-party owners should not be subject to forfeiture, and granted the application for the return of the vehicle.

The applicant brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a search warrant and seeking to exclude seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant argued the information to obtain (ITO) the warrant lacked reasonable and probable grounds and contained misleading information.

The court found that the ITO disclosed sufficient reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant's issuance, thus no s. 8 Charter violation occurred.

The court also determined that, even if a s. 8 violation had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, applying the Grant tripartite framework, as the breach was not serious, the impact on the applicant's Charter rights was not significant, and society's interest in the adjudication on the merits was high.

The application was dismissed.

The 22-year-old accused pleaded guilty to firearms offences after retrieving a loaded handgun from his car and chasing a restaurant employee following a minor altercation.

The accused, who had ties to the drug trade, admitted on a wiretap to cocking the weapon and considering shooting the employee.

Despite the accused being a youthful first offender who had taken steps toward rehabilitation, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global penitentiary sentence of four years.

This 5-day judge-alone criminal trial concerned charges against the accused, S.S., for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and making sexually explicit material available to his biological daughter, B, when she was between 5 and 8 years old.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming B fabricated them to spend more time with her mother, and that her knowledge of sexual acts came from accidentally observing him masturbating or viewing pornography on his phone.

The court found the complainant's testimony compelling, logical, and detailed, noting that piecemeal disclosure did not undermine her credibility.

The court disbelieved the accused's testimony, finding his explanations improbable and inconsistent.

S.S. was found guilty on all three counts.

The accused, S.C., brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The court calculated the total delay, subtracted defence-caused delay (including failure to follow up on disclosure and counsel unavailability for earlier trial dates), and accounted for exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings and did not establish that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, especially considering the pandemic's impact on the justice system.

The accused challenged the admissibility of cell phone evidence, including videos and images, on the basis of a Section 8 Charter violation (unreasonable search and seizure).

The court found that all four accused had standing to bring the challenge.

While the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for the cell phones was facially insufficient, the court considered additional information from an earlier search warrant (Appendix D) during the Section 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis.

The court determined that the Section 8 violation, though present, was not very serious, and while it had a significant impact on privacy interests, the societal interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, particularly given the reliable and important nature of the evidence (videos depicting illegal handgun possession), outweighed the breach.

Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.