CEDRIC Y. L. NAHUM
FOUNDER, B.Soc.Sc., L.L.B.
Cedric Nahum is a trial lawyer based in Ottawa, Ontario who litigates in both English and French. Cedric was called to the bar in 2005 and has 15 years of experience fighting for his clients in well over 1000 cases both at the Ontario Court of Justice, and Superior Court of Justice.
Cedric protects individuals against all types of criminal allegations from Assault, Robbery, Sexual Assault, Break and Enter, Firearms Offences to Fraud and Human Trafficking.
Cedric advocates for his clients’ interests with an understanding of what is at stake for each individual; their freedom. This has led Cedric to focus on client care and providing an energetic and passionate defence against the State.
Cedric’s experience has led to a familiarity with Mental Health Court, Youth Court, Drug Court, and Indigenous Peoples Court which allows him to easily navigate matters involving diverse clientele.
Cedric is a member of the Criminal Law Association, former Director, and current member of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa, and a member of the Child Protection Defence Association of Ottawa. Cedric is a member of the following Legal Aid Panels: Gladue, Child Protection, Criminal Law (including the Extremely Serious Matters Panel), Ontario Review Board, and Administrative Board / Tribunal.
ARTICLES
DECISIONS
Criminal Law - Stay of Proceedings Granted
165 The Charter is the supreme law of Canada. Reasonable minded members of the community understand that the Charter serves to protect everyone — even the most undeserving of individuals within our society in many instances. Any person charged with an offence may lay claim to the guaranteed right to trial within a reasonable time — the four co-accused here, no less so.
166 The delay encountered in trying them has been demonstrated to infringe their rights under s. 11(b) of the Charter. The only remedy, in such circumstances, and rare as it may be that this remedy be granted, is to stay the prosecution of the charges for these four co-accused. I must and will do so.”
Child Protection Law - Children’s Aid Society Motion Dismissed
38 I do not accept the Society’s submission that even with the hearsay statements excluded, the remaining evidence is sufficient to grant their motion. On the contrary, I am not able to rule out the father’s theory that the mother has coached or inappropriately influence the child based on the evidence presented. Therefore, I cannot conclude, with confidence, that there is no genuine issue requiring trial.
39 The motion for summary judgment is dismissed.
(CAS (Ottawa) v. M.M. 2018 ONSC 786)
Criminal Law - Constitutional Challenge to Mandatory Minimum
112 In these circumstances, I conclude that the mandatory minimum sentence is grossly disproportionate to the fit sentences for these offenders for the following reasons:
i. While the determination of a grossly disproportionate sentence is not a mathematical calculation, sentences between 8 and 18 months are less than half and could be less than one-third the mandatory minimum;
ii. Sentences between 8 and 18 months are reformatory in nature, while the mandatory minimum is a penitentiary sentence. Thus, the nature of the sentence changes, and in the case of Ms. Ngoto, she would be placed in a federal penitentiary. Penitentiary sentences are generally reserved for the most serious offenders or offences;
iii. The factual matrix surrounding these offences and the preparatory conduct attributed to the offenders would not be viewed by the general public as warranting a five- year sentence in a penitentiary. When presented with facts of the offenders working within the sex industry, even if the evidence of Ms. Ahmed as a victim is not as clear as the evidence of Ms. Ngoto, the members of the general public would in my view find a five-year sentence to be shocking, and such a sentence would outrage the standards of decency.
113 Consequently, I find that the personal circumstances of these offenders justify a conclusion that the five-year minimum sentence provided for under s. 279.011 of the Code is a punishment that is cruel and unusual and thus violates s. 12 of the Charter.
114 As a result of my conclusion that the mandatory minimum sentence is grossly disproportionate for both Applicants personally, there is no need for me to address the reasonable hypotheticals presented under the s. 12 arguments: see R. v. Morrison, 2017 ONCA 582 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 135."
(R. v. Ahmed et al., 2019 ONSC 4822, Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
Youth Criminal Justice Proceeding - Application for Bail
[47] In the particular circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public. In coming to this conclusion, I have taken into account the weakness of the Crown’s case on the only “serious offence” 2018 ONCJ 354 (CanLII) charged against this young person; his absence of a record for drug trafficking, the “serious offence” which the Crown alleges there is a substantial likelihood of him committing if he is released; the low level trafficking which I have concluded he may engage in (but that I am not convinced there is a substantial likelihood of), and the general policy of the YCJA which mandates detention only in rare circumstances.
[48] I have no doubt that the defendant’s CAS worker and probation officers acted with the best of intentions in seeking the defendant’s detention. I share their concerns. But I have concluded, after much thought, that the purpose of detention would be to serve as a substitute for appropriate child protection or mental health measures. That is not the purpose of pre-trial detention under the YCJA.