Cameron Cotton-O’Brien

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.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Doug Lloyd’s appeal from the Superior Court’s refusal to extend time for judicial review of the Crown’s decision to stay his private prosecution against Bell Canada.

The court held that prosecutorial discretion is only reviewable for abuse of process, which requires egregious conduct.

The application judge made no error in law or fact, and the Crown’s decision not to consider expert evidence or to stay the prosecution on public interest grounds did not amount to an abuse of process.

This decision involves the sexual assault trial of Sharmake Sheikh, who was charged with one count of sexual assault against C.N. The case hinged on conflicting accounts of the events that occurred after the parties met at an after-hours club in Toronto.

The complainant testified to non-consensual sexual contact in a cab and outside an apartment building, supported by video evidence and witness testimony.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming consensual interaction and an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The judge found the complainant credible and the accused evasive, rejecting the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Conrad Grizzle, faced six charges including threatening, assault, theft, and breach of a release order, stemming from an altercation with his ex-partner.

The court assessed witness credibility, the applicability of "lawful excuse" for the breach, and the "de minimis" and "consent fight" defenses for the assault and theft charges.

The court found the accused not guilty of theft of a car key, one count of assault (related to taking the phone), and breach of release order (due to lawful excuse to protect a child).

However, the accused was found guilty of threatening bodily harm, assault (bear hug), and theft of the cellphone, rejecting the de minimis and consent fight defenses in the context of intimate partner violence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking 1279 grams of cocaine.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defendant sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court weighed mitigating factors, including the defendant's minor role, remorse, and compliance with house arrest, against the significant quantity of cocaine and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court concluded that a conditional sentence would not adequately address denunciation and deterrence, and imposed a three-year custodial sentence.

The appellant, Stephen Tello, appealed his convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine, trafficking cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime, and his 15-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

The court found no errors in the trial judge's instructions on multiple counts, the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule, or the PGP messages.

The court also refused to allow a new Charter issue regarding the PGP messages to be raised on appeal, finding the decision not to raise it at trial was tactical and no miscarriage of justice would result.

The sentence was deemed fit, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation for large-scale drug offences.

The appellant, Kyle Sparks MacKinnon, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and wounding, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a dying victim's statement as a spontaneous utterance or under the principled hearsay exception, and in the jury instructions regarding its treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the statement admissible as a spontaneous utterance due to its spontaneity and the victim's state, and that the jury instructions were adequate.

The court affirmed the trial judge's finding that no "special features" undermined the statement's reliability.