The Deport Report

🇨🇦 A DISTURBING TORONTO CASE IS RAISING SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY According to court reporting, Ahmed Baig, 38, was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm and assault by choking after an August 2023 incident involving a 7-year-old girl. Justice Mara Greene’s decision states that Baig left his home after vaping cannabis, chased a family, picked up the child, threw her to the ground, punched her and strangled her. The attack itself was not disputed. The key legal issue was whether his actions were voluntary. Justice Greene concluded that Baig had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that he was experiencing non-mental-disorder automatism following an unexpected cannabis-induced psychotic reaction. The court therefore found him not guilty of both charges. The Crown had argued that cannabis affected his mental state but that his actions remained voluntary. That distinction matters: the acquittal did not mean the court found that the attack never happened. Rather, the court concluded that criminal responsibility had not been established under the legal rules governing involuntary conduct. Justice Greene has served on the Ontario Court of Justice since 2009. Before becoming a judge, she was a criminal lawyer, appeared at every level of court including the Supreme Court of Canada, and developed particular expertise involving mental-health and youth matters. She also served as president of the Canadian Chapter of the International Association of Women Judges. This is also not the first Greene decision to attract significant public attention. In 2020, she sentenced Marcella Zoia — the Toronto “Chair Girl” — to a $2,000 fine, 150 hours of community service and two years of probation, rejecting the Crown’s request for jail. In another widely reported case, Greene sentenced Moazzam Tariq to two years and nine months in prison in absentia after he fled Canada following a sexual-assault conviction. Greene said proceeding without him was necessary to avoid an unjust result for the victim. Whatever people think of these outcomes, disagreement with a ruling is not automatically evidence of judicial misconduct. But Canadians are absolutely entitled to examine court decisions, understand the reasoning behind them and debate whether existing laws strike the right balance between criminal responsibility, victims’ interests and public safety. What do you think: does Canadian law adequately deal with violent acts committed during extreme intoxication or automatism? #Canada #Ontario #Toronto #CanadianJustice #PublicSafety #Courts #CrimeNews #JusticeSystem Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976: allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, and research. This page focuses on public awareness, and real discussions on Canadian, American & UK issues.