Christina Malezis

The three accused were charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine, trafficking cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime following an RCMP undercover operation.

The Crown's case relied heavily on voice identification evidence from intercepted communications to link the accused Shanker to the conspiracy.

The court found the voice identification evidence unreliable due to cross-racial identification issues, expectation bias, and the poor quality of the recordings.

Without reliable voice identification, the circumstantial evidence of the accused's presence at the warehouse was insufficient to prove their involvement in the drug trafficking scheme beyond a reasonable doubt.

All accused were acquitted of the cocaine-related charges.

Pawar conceded guilt to a separate charge of possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant appealed his convictions for importing heroin, possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing proceeds of crime over $5,000, and sought leave to appeal his global sentence of 12 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's refusal of a mistrial due to non-disclosure of alternate suspects, the handling of eyewitness identification evidence (applying the curative proviso), the admission of police opinion evidence, or the instructions on post-offence conduct.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the 12-year global sentence fit given the seriousness and quantity of the drugs involved.

The accused, two brothers, were charged with various drug trafficking, firearms, and proceeds of crime offences following a police investigation.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused had knowledge and control of contraband found in secret compartments in two vehicles and cash found in an apartment.

The court found both accused guilty of the offences relating to the vehicles, concluding that their exclusive or near-exclusive use of the vehicles and the presence of personal items in the secret compartments left no other reasonable inference than guilt.

However, both accused were acquitted of possessing the cash found in the apartment, as other individuals had access to the unit, raising a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Ronald Burgess, appealed his convictions for drug trafficking (cocaine, MDMA, proceeds of crime) and sought leave to appeal his sentence for marijuana trafficking.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge impermissibly used inadmissible hearsay wiretap evidence, which tainted the credibility findings against the appellant on the non-marijuana counts.

Consequently, the court allowed the conviction appeal, deeming the verdicts unsafe, and ordered a new trial for those counts.

The court also granted leave and allowed the sentence appeal, remitting the matter for re-sentencing on the marijuana trafficking conviction.

The applicant, Shaji Bashir Ahmad, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was 46 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown argued that defence delay accounted for the excess, while the defence contended the delay was due to the Crown's late and incomplete disclosure of cell phone search warrants, ITOs, and extracted data.

The court found that the defence's waivers of delay were uninformed due to the Crown's disclosure failures, which included police oversight in not informing the Crown of the warrants and the Crown's erroneous assertion that the data was unreadable.

The court attributed significant portions of the delay to the Crown and found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The applicant sought to revisit a decision dismissing his application to vary bail, arguing the court relied on a factual error regarding his brother's address.

The court acknowledged the error but declined to revisit the ruling, finding the error was not material to the outcome.

The original decision was based primarily on the applicant's history of bail violations, the distance from his surety, and the risk of further offences.

The application to revisit was dismissed.

The case concerns an entrapment application brought by Joshua Hill following his conviction for drug trafficking.

Hill argued that police entrapped him during a dial-a-dope investigation.

Applying the principles from R. v. Ahmad and R. v. Williams, the court assessed whether the police had reasonable suspicion before offering the opportunity to commit an offence.

The court found that the detailed information received by the undercover officer, combined with Hill's responses during the initial call, established reasonable suspicion, thereby dismissing the entrapment application.

The appellant, Joshua Nuziato, appealed his sentence for trafficking cocaine, arguing the sentence was inappropriate given his guilty plea, insufficient weight was given to COVID-19 during pre-sentence custody, and the probation term was not legally available.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit and within range, noted the sentencing judge had considered COVID-19 as a mitigating factor, and confirmed that a probation order was legally available as the term of imprisonment did not exceed two years.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, charged with major drug trafficking offences, applied to vary his strict bail conditions to change his residential surety and permit him to operate a liquidation business.

The court found that while there was a material change in circumstances regarding the current surety, the proposed replacement surety was not equipped to properly supervise the accused.

The court also found no material change of circumstances justifying the accused's return to work, noting that his proposed liquidation business posed an unacceptable risk of re-offending given his history of bail breaches and the nature of the charges.

The application to vary bail was dismissed.

The applicant, Jeremy Bailey, sought bail pending appeal of his 2016 drug trafficking convictions, after his initial bail pending appeal was revoked due to new drug charges and breaches of conditions.

He argued that the subsequent stay of his 2018 charges and potential Charter violations related to his April 2020 arrest constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal denied the application, finding that despite these new developments, the lingering public safety concerns and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, particularly given his "flagrant" breaches of prior bail conditions, outweighed the reviewability interest.

Following conviction for drug trafficking offences, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment.

The Crown sought to rely on confidential informant information to establish that the officer had reasonable suspicion prior to offering the accused an opportunity to commit the offence, as required under Ahmad.

The Crown sought to use the Step Six procedure from Garofoli to present redacted information to the defence while allowing the court to review unredacted materials.

The court ruled that Step Six is available in the entrapment context, extending its application beyond the traditional warrant review setting.

The appellants were convicted of drug trafficking offences following the execution of search warrants at two condominiums and a vehicle.

They appealed their convictions and sentences, arguing that the searches violated their s. 8 Charter rights and that a delay in facilitating access to counsel violated s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal found that the searches were lawful, with the warrantless entry justified by exigent circumstances.

Although the court found a s. 10(b) breach due to a four-hour delay in providing access to counsel, it declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), noting the breach was an isolated incident rather than systemic.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The court ruled on the admissibility of a statement made by the accused following a search warrant execution at his condominium.

The accused was violently abducted and subsequently rescued.

Police executed a search warrant at his residence and found controlled substances.

When the accused later contacted police to retrieve his key, an officer met him at a Tim Hortons and obtained identification information linking him to the premises.

The Crown sought to admit this identification and the accused's statements as evidence of ownership and control.

The court found the statements inadmissible as involuntary, holding that the accused was denied a meaningful choice to remain silent and did not appreciate the jeopardy he faced.

The appellant was convicted of production of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of the proceeds of crime following a trial before a Superior Court judge sitting without a jury.

He was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the issuance of telewarrants used to search two properties, the trial judge's refusal to permit cross-examination of the ITO affiant, the validity of the search warrants, and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence, arguing the trial judge misstated the defence position on bail credit and failed to consider rehabilitative prospects and the principle of restraint.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction and, while granting leave to appeal sentence, dismissed the appeal from sentence.