A. Hannah-Suarez

The appellant, Zaheer Ahmad, appealed his convictions for failing to comply with a court order, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly apply the test for circumstantial evidence as set out in R. v. Villaroman.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the evidence and the trial judge’s reasoning, finding that the judge was entitled to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the author of the emails in question.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a ruling on the admissibility of documentary evidence in a criminal trial involving allegations of fraud at a Salvation Army distribution facility.

The Crown sought to admit thousands of documents obtained through internal audits and police investigations, including business records from the Salvation Army's Railside facility, emails, manifests, driver logs, invoices, and tax receipts.

The defendants challenged the admissibility of these documents on various grounds.

The court conducted a comprehensive voir dire to determine which documents could be admitted as business records under the Canadian Evidence Act, common law exceptions, or the principled approach to hearsay.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing a man in a bar.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code based on a long pattern of violent conduct involving unprovoked assaults and weapon use.

The court accepted psychiatric evidence that the offender suffered from schizophrenia and other disorders but found the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met due to a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour and a likelihood of future violence.

However, the court concluded that an indeterminate sentence was not justified because treatment compliance, particularly injectable medication and structured supervision, created a reasonable expectation that the public could be adequately protected.

The offender was sentenced to a determinate term followed by a long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol in her system and impaired driving following a motor vehicle collision on the Don Valley Parkway on February 20, 2013.

The trial raised significant Charter issues regarding the accused's right to counsel.

The court found that the accused did not receive a reasonable opportunity to consult with duty counsel due to the duty counsel's unprofessional and rude conduct, combined with the police's failure to provide a Prosper warning or explore alternative options for legal consultation.

The court excluded the breath readings as evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Without the breath readings, the Crown could not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day plus three years probation.

The defence sought approximately nine months with credit for nearly two years of house arrest.

The court imposed a sentence of 42 days intermittent imprisonment plus three years probation with conditions including counselling, community service, and compliance with sex offender registration requirements.

The court emphasized the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, significant mitigating factors including childhood sexual abuse and mental health issues, and low risk of reoffending, while balancing denunciation and general deterrence principles applicable to child pornography offences.

This is a preliminary inquiry into charges of indecent assault and gross indecency arising from alleged sexual conduct between the accused, a 27-year-old adult, and the complainant, a 15-year-old boy, in the summer of 1970.

The Crown sought committal on two counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency.

The court found insufficient evidence of non-consent for indecent assault, as the complainant's participation, though hesitant and reluctant, was voluntary with no threats, coercion, or abuse of authority.

However, the court found evidence sufficient for committal on gross indecency charges, considering the acts themselves (anal intercourse and fondling between males) were per se grossly indecent under 1970 law, and the significant age difference and power imbalance between the parties constituted additional relevant circumstances.