Adib Nadi

The accused, the former Executive Director of a non-profit charity, was charged with fraud over $5,000 and breach of probation.

The Crown alleged he used corporate credit cards and cheques for unauthorized personal expenses, including hotels, sports equipment, and cash advances, totaling over $60,000.

The accused argued he had discretion over business expenses and that the Crown failed to prove the expenses were personal.

The court rejected the accused's arguments, finding the direct and circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the transactions were unauthorized personal expenses.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was arrested following a police response to a call about an intoxicated passenger in a cab.

A search incident to arrest revealed the accused was in possession of 111 grams of Ketamine.

The Crown alleged possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused conceded possession of the substance but contested the trafficking allegation.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved the accused possessed the Ketamine for trafficking purposes.

The Crown relied on expert evidence regarding the quantity being consistent with trafficking.

The defence argued the absence of other indicia of trafficking left open the reasonable possibility of personal use.

The Crown sought to qualify a police officer to give opinion evidence regarding the methodology of drug trafficking, pricing, distribution, and street use of ketamine in a possession for trafficking case.

The defence challenged the officer's qualifications.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and White Burgess test for expert evidence admissibility, finding that the officer's training, experience with approximately 30 ketamine investigations, conversations with other officers and drug users, and prior testimony as a drug expert provided a sufficient foundation for the proposed opinion evidence.

The court admitted the evidence while excluding toxicology information regarding lethal dosing as beyond the officer's expertise.

The applicant was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking on October 3, 2015.

He applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was scheduled for March 13-16, 2017.

The court found that the defence demonstrated sustained effort to expedite proceedings through timely disclosure requests and strategic trial date setting.

The overall delay of 17 months and 6 days was found to be markedly longer than the expected 13-14 months for a case of this type in the jurisdiction.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.