Andrew Anthony Furgiuele

The appellant was convicted of possession of child pornography under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code and acquitted of making child pornography available under s. 163.1(3).

The appellant appealed his conviction on Charter grounds, arguing that the search of his residence and computer violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the search was unlawful but argued the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The Crown also appealed the acquittal on the making available count, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the mens rea requirement.

The court dismissed the appellant's conviction appeal and allowed the Crown's appeal, ordering a new trial on the making available count.

The appellants appealed their convictions for methamphetamine production and possession, and challenged a pre-trial ruling dismissing their Charter applications.

The appellants obtained a residential property through fraud and converted it into a methamphetamine laboratory.

They were arrested during a police search warrant execution.

The application judge found the appellants lacked standing to bring a section 8 Charter claim and dismissed their section 7 claim as lacking factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal upheld these findings, concluding that the appellants' tenuous connection to the property through fraudulent means, combined with their temporary and illegal use of it, precluded any reasonable expectation of privacy.

The conviction appeals were dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was denied.

The appellant was convicted of possession of oxycodone, Percocet, and clonazepam for the purpose of trafficking.

The central issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of text messages extracted from the appellant's seized cellphone.

The Crown sought to admit incoming text messages requesting drugs as hearsay evidence under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The trial judge admitted the messages and instructed the jury they could be used for the truth of their contents.

The appellant appealed, arguing the messages were improperly admitted and the jury was inadequately instructed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the incoming text messages were properly admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule based on threshold reliability and necessity, and that the jury charge adequately addressed the dangers of hearsay evidence.

The Crown charged two members of the Men's Fire, a group within the Six Nations community, with assault for forcibly removing a lawyer from a meeting at the Haudenosaunee Development Institute offices.

The defendants claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code, arguing they were acting pursuant to traditional Haudenosaunee governance to remove the complainant from reserve territory.

The court found that while the defendants had a subjective belief they were acting in accordance with traditional governance, the defence of property did not apply because: (1) the defendants did not have peaceable possession of the property given the political conflict; (2) the complainant had a lawful entitlement to be present as an invitee of the HDI; and (3) the use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances, as there was no emergency, alternative remedies were available, and the action was politically motivated rather than necessary for community protection.

Both defendants were convicted of assault.

The appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his girlfriend's daughter and four of her friends, all primary school girls aged 10-12 at the time of disclosure.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in allowing similar fact evidence by failing to properly apply the burden of proof regarding unintentional collusion between the victims.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in not subjecting unconscious collusion to the same evidentiary burden as actual collusion, the error was harmless and did not occasion a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

Two appellants, Jemaine Phillips and Drai O'Hara-Salmon, appealed their convictions for first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of Said Hadbai in a parking lot across from Jack's Bar in London, Ontario on December 27, 2011.

Phillips, who fired the fatal shot, was convicted as the principal offender.

O'Hara-Salmon was convicted as a party to the offence under sections 21(1)(b), 21(1)(c), and 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

Phillips raised multiple grounds of appeal concerning the trial judge's instructions on self-defence, the exclusion of expert psychiatric evidence, the failure to leave provocation with the jury, and various other charging issues.

O'Hara-Salmon raised grounds concerning the adequacy of instructions on party liability, the failure to give a W.(D.) instruction, and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's conduct or instructions.

The appellant appealed her sentence for contempt of court, imposed for refusing to testify at her father's perjury trial.

The father was charged with perjury for allegedly lying under oath at a previous trial of the appellant's fiancée.

The appellant had been sentenced to one year imprisonment consecutive to time already being served for perjury convictions related to testimony given at the fiancée's earlier trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the sentence was not unfit.

This addendum addresses the appellant Ronald Cyr's request for clarification regarding the court's refusal to allow him to advance a new Charter argument on appeal.

The appellant sought to argue that sections 7, 11(d), and 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms required that clause 6 of section 3(1) of the Juries Act be expanded to exclude former auxiliary police officers from jury service.

The court declined to permit this new argument, finding no air of reality to the suggestion of bias and noting that sections 670 and 671 of the Criminal Code provided a complete answer to this ground of appeal.

A police officer with the Niagara Regional Police was convicted of conspiracy to smuggle cheese into Canada from the United States without paying required duties, related customs offences, and breach of trust by a public official.

The appellant organized a scheme with another constable to smuggle approximately $133,000 worth of cheese across the border, evading approximately $325,000 in duties.

The appellant was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for the smuggling offences and one month consecutive for breach of trust.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his breach of trust conviction and sought leave to appeal both sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences regarding the CPIC query were reasonable and the sentences were fit.

The defendant, Jefferey J. Mitchell, was charged with robbery, masked face, and using an imitation firearm following a bank robbery on June 5, 2015.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the robber.

The Crown presented circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's physical description, vehicle, and clothing matching those of the robber, as well as evidence of the defendant's recent possession of dye-stained money from the robbery found at two casinos shortly after the incident.

The court applied the doctrine of recent possession and, considering the totality of the circumstantial evidence, found that the Crown had proven the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty on all three counts.

Three accused were convicted of first-degree murder following a trial involving an undercover police operation.

The appellants challenged the conviction on multiple grounds including: (1) the trial judge's refusal to sever the trial; (2) the admissibility of statements made to an undercover officer; (3) jury management issues during sequestration; and (4) various trial procedure matters.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that joint trial was appropriate despite cutthroat defences, the undercover operation did not violate Charter rights, and jury management issues did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.

The applicants, charged with violence and neglect, sought to vacate their election for a judge-alone trial and re-elect for a judge and jury trial.

They argued their initial waiver of a jury trial was not validly informed and that the Crown's refusal to consent to re-election constituted an abuse of process.

The court found the initial election was voluntary and unequivocal, and that the applicants were sufficiently informed, having received some legal advice.

The court also determined that the Crown's refusal to consent did not meet the high threshold for abuse of process, as there was no prosecutorial misconduct that would shock the conscience of the community.

The application to re-elect was dismissed.

The applicant, Trevor William Zachary, sought certiorari to quash a fraud charge (Count 2) on an 18-count indictment following a preliminary inquiry.

He argued the preliminary inquiry judge erred by committing him to trial without evidence of deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, failing to properly test the evidence against the elements of fraud, and not considering all relevant evidence.

The Superior Court found that the preliminary inquiry judge did not commit jurisdictional error.

It determined there was sufficient evidence to establish the actus reus and mens rea of fraud under the "other fraudulent means" category, specifically that the applicant, as a City employee, used his position to book ice time for himself at reduced or zero rates, thereby depriving the City of revenue or putting its economic interests at risk.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

Herbert Adams was convicted after trial of four counts of fraud over $5,000 contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The frauds involved defrauding shareholders of Majestic Supply Company of $5.3 million and three named individuals of $381,000 combined.

Adams personally received $1,610,444 in proceeds of crime.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of five and one-half years on the primary count with concurrent two-year sentences on the remaining counts, along with a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $1,610,444, a restitution order of $5.3 million, a no-contact order, and a DNA order.