Mr Manasseri pled guilty to one count of instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization, contrary to s 467.13 of the Criminal Code. The offence to which the instruction related was a charge under s 202(1)(j) of the Criminal Code, aiding or assisting in any matter in anything that is an offence under that section (entitled ‘Betting, pool-selling, book-making, etc.). The instruction had been given to Mr Saikaley.

At sentencing, two issues fell before Justice H Fraser. The first was the appropriate head sentence for Mr Manasseri. The second was the appropriate minimum period of time served without parole. The Crown submitted that Justice H Fraser should apply s 746.3(1.2) of the Criminal Code, which would impose a minimum period without parole of one half of the head sentence. The defence argued that this provision should not be applied because the offence to which Mr Manasseri pleaded guilty was not sufficiently serious. If s 746.3(1.2) of the Criminal Code was not applied, Mr Manasseri’s period without parole would be determined in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

With respect to mitigating factors, Justice H Fraser noted that Mr Manasseri indicated at a fairly early stage in the criminal proceedings against him that he was going to plead guilty, sparing the resources of the court in running what might have been a lengthy trial. Justice H Fraser also noted that Mr Manasseri withdrew from the criminal enterprise voluntarily while it was still ongoing, and also that he had complied with strict bail conditions following his arrest.

On the other hand, it was noted that the fact that the primary purpose of the organized criminal group was to secure profit was an aggravating factor, pursuant to s 718.2(a)(iv) of the Criminal Code. It was further noted that Mr Manasseri did have a criminal record, but this was qualified by an acknowledgment that the last entry on that record was some 25 years earlier and it was for an unrelated offence.

In determining the appropriate sentence for Mr Manasseri, Justice H Fraser relied on the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R v Palfrey [2014] SJ No 2 (Sask CA). In this case the Court set out a number of factors relevant to assessing the gravity of an offence contrary to s 467.13 of the Criminal Code. The Court identified the following five factors as relevant:

1. The size and sophistication of the organization (number of people, hierarchy, spread);
2. The operational style and ethic of the organization. Does it threaten violence, use or have access to weapons;
3. The raison d’etre of the organization. For what purpose does it exist;
4. The place that the offender occupies in the hierarchy of the criminal organization;
5. The particulars of the “instruction” which forms the gravamen of the offence.

With regard to the first factor, Justice H Fraser noted that the organization involved three people, Mr Manasseri and Messers Gary Saikaley and Domenico Arecchi. The organization ran three betting websites. It was further noted that there was no evidence that organization operated outside of Ottawa and Rockland.

Concerning the second factor, it was noted that there was no evidence that the group engaged in any sort of violence; nor was there evidence that they had threatened to use violence or used weapons.

In relation to the third factor, Justice H Fraser noted that there was no other rationale behind the group’s existence other than financial gain for its members.

Mr Manasseri’s position in organization was noted to be the head of the organization, despite the fact that the organization had been managed on a day-to-day basis by Mr Saikaley. In early 2012, Mr Manasseri left the organization and Mr Saikaley took over from him as leader. During the period Mr Manasseri was head of the organization, the court inferred that he gave directions to his subordinates as necessary for the operation of the criminal enterprise.

Considering all of these factors, Justice H Fraser took the view that Mr Manasseri’s sentence should have been higher than that given to his co-offender, Mr Saikaley because of Mr Manasseri’s more senior role in the organization. Mr Saikaley had been sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. Justice H Fraser sentenced Mr Manasseri to 26 months’ imprisonment.

With respect to the issue of parole eligibility, Justice H Fraser was satisfied that, in the circumstances of the case, it was appropriate for Mr Manasseri’s parole eligibility to be determined in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and not through the application of the mandatory minimum period in s 743.6(1.2) of the Criminal Code. This was for two key reasons. Firstly, the activity involved in the criminal offence, gaming, was less serious than other criminal offences to which the provision could be applied, such as crimes involving terrorism, violence, drug trafficking or weapons. Secondly, Mr Manasseri had ceased his involvement in the criminal organization prior to his arrest and had been involved in legitimate employment.