Concetta Zary

The accused, Raamkumar Raaman, was charged with fraud over $5,000 and found not guilty by a jury.

This endorsement provides reasons for two trial rulings: a defence request for a Vetrovec caution regarding Crown employee witnesses and the answer to a jury question during deliberations.

The judge determined that a Vetrovec caution was required for the employee witnesses, who were considered potential accomplices, and provided a concise answer to the jury's question about the existence of evidence regarding software used to alter paperwork found on the accused's computer.

This endorsement addresses a voir dire during a criminal trial for fraud over $5,000, concerning the admissibility of documents seized from a shredder box.

The court ruled on the application of the "documents in possession" rule, distinguishing between circumstantial evidence and adoptive admissions.

Exhibit P (invoice and emails) and Exhibits 27, 41, and 45 were deemed admissible as adoptive admissions, contingent on the jury finding the accused had possession.

Exhibits 19 and 25 (business cards and pricing sheet) were admissible only as circumstantial evidence, also contingent on proof of possession.

The jury must be instructed on the necessity of establishing possession for all admitted documents.

The accused, charged with fraud over $5,000, challenged the admissibility of income tax records belonging to his wife and son, arguing they constituted inadmissible double hearsay under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act and would cause unfairness.

The court affirmed its earlier ruling, holding that business records containing double hearsay are admissible under s. 30, with the weight of such evidence being a matter for the trier of fact, not admissibility.

The court also outlined specific limiting instructions to be given to the jury to mitigate any potential unfairness to the accused.

The offender, previously convicted of tax fraud and ordered to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture, applied to extend the time for payment under s. 734.3 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown brought a cross-application for a warrant of committal under s. 734.7 due to default in payment.

The court dismissed the offender's application, finding that s. 734.3 does not apply to fines in lieu of forfeiture.

The court also dismissed the Crown's application, concluding that the Crown had not established that the offender refused to pay without reasonable excuse, nor that civil enforcement mechanisms were inappropriate.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences under the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in respect of fraudulent refugee applications totalling 170 applications.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of 45 months' imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed both his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the conviction appeal, noting that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the trial judge's findings and that the trial judge properly evaluated witness credibility and the appellant's unworthy evidence.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding that the sentence was appropriate given the serious aggravating factors including the number of fraudulent applications, multiple breaches of trust, and the appellant's motives of financial gain and community standing.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the apartment was the appellant's residence and that he had knowledge of and control over the cocaine found in the freezer.

On appeal, the appellant contended that the verdict was unreasonable and that one could reasonably infer the apartment was his wife's home and that she alone had knowledge of the cocaine.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding it was reasonable for the trial judge to conclude that the evidence as a whole excluded all reasonable alternatives to guilt.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a 16-month global sentence imposed for trafficking in crack cocaine while on probation.

Although the sentencing judge initially misunderstood counsel's submission regarding the proposed sentence, the Court of Appeal found the sentence was fit given the nature of the offense, the quantity and type of drugs involved, and the breach of probation.

The sentencing judge appropriately declined to impose an unfit sentence to avoid adverse immigration consequences for the appellant.

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.