Arif Alibhai

The accused were charged with offences arising from the discovery of two handguns in a downtown Toronto hotel room.

The Crown sought to admit evidence obtained through an investigative chain that included an initial street-level drug investigation, a warrantless search of a rental car, and a warrantless entry into a hotel room.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple Charter breaches.

The court found that while there were some Charter violations, they were not sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion of the evidence.

The court admitted the evidence, finding that the officers acted in good faith, the breaches were minimal, and society's interest in prosecuting firearm offences outweighed the Charter violations.

The accused faced multiple charges relating to drug and firearms trafficking arising from a major police investigation involving wiretaps and surveillance.

The court found the primary target guilty of all charges based on overwhelming intercept and surveillance evidence.

Another accused was found guilty of purchasing a firearm and trafficking marijuana.

However, charges against two other accused were dismissed due to insufficient voice identification evidence and the legal principle that a mere purchaser in a bilateral transaction is not guilty of conspiracy.

This decision contains pre-charge rulings in a criminal trial involving charges of robbery, kidnapping, and attempted murder against David Kawal and co-accused.

The court addressed three issues: the admissibility of consciousness of guilt evidence, a directed verdict application for one of the attempted murder charges against Kawal, and an alternative suspect application.

The court ruled that the consciousness of guilt evidence (cell phone sim card change) was inadmissible due to its low probative value and high prejudicial effect.

It granted a directed verdict of acquittal for Kawal on the attempted murder of Mohammed Ibrahim, finding that the act was not a probable consequence of the common criminal purpose.

Finally, the court allowed the defence to pursue an alternative suspect (Q.H.) for the shooting of Officer Alwyn, finding sufficient admissible evidence to lend an "air of reality" to this defence.

On a Crown evidentiary motion in a joint criminal trial, the court considered whether parole-source evidence linking one accused to a cell phone and related biographical information was admissible.

The court held the evidence had high probative value because the cell tower data was a major pillar of the Crown case and the accused's likely possession of the phone was a key circumstantial link.

Although the evidence carried some moral prejudice by revealing the accused was on parole, the jury would not learn the underlying offences and a limiting instruction could reduce prejudice.

The court rejected the Crown's submission that anticipated character attacks on a complainant supported admission, but still ruled the evidence admissible and encouraged counsel to prepare an agreed statement of facts to minimize prejudice.

At a preliminary hearing, the accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences, including unauthorized possession of a handgun, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a prohibited magazine and ammunition, and breach of recognizance, arising from the discovery of a loaded handgun under a mattress in a motel room.

The Crown sought to establish that the accused possessed the firearm based on circumstantial evidence including his presence in the room, his use of a key card to access it, and his nervous demeanor upon encountering police.

The preliminary hearing judge found insufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of possession, specifically knowledge and control over the firearm, and discharged the accused on all counts.