Concetta Zary

The Crown appealed directed verdicts of acquittal on drug and firearm possession and conspiracy charges arising from contraband found in a storage locker and hidden vehicle compartments.

The accused had repeatedly accompanied a co‑conspirator to a storage locker used as a drug stash house and later exercised exclusive control over the co‑conspirator’s vehicle containing large quantities of cocaine, fentanyl, and a handgun.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in removing the case from the trier of fact.

Applying the directed verdict framework, the circumstantial evidence could support reasonable inferences of participation in the drug conspiracy.

The acquittals were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

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 accused, charged with fraud over $5,000 for allegedly defrauding the government of customs duties, brought a pre-trial motion to adduce alternate suspect evidence implicating five employees.

The Crown conceded for three employees but opposed for two.

The court granted the accused's application, finding sufficient connection between the employees and the crime.

The Crown also brought a motion to admit the videotaped statement of a deceased employee.

The court dismissed the Crown's application as premature, without prejudice to renew it before the close of its case.

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 accused, a chartered accountant, was convicted of defrauding the Government of Canada of income tax and GST/HST over $5,000.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence and a $500,000 fine, arguing the fraud exceeded $1 million.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fraud exceeded $1 million, so the statutory aggravating factor did not apply.

Considering the accused's lack of prior record, good character, and the availability of a conditional sentence at the time of the offence, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day and a fine of $445,789.30.

The applicant, charged with fraud related to an alleged RRSP stripping scheme, brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 24(2) to exclude evidence seized from various financial institutions and his residence.

He argued the affiant made intentional misrepresentations and omissions in the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

The court conducted a Garofoli review and found that, despite some minor errors and one misrepresentation regarding a CRA auditor's opinion, there remained sufficient evidence upon which the issuing justices could have granted the authorizations.

The court also found the applicant had a negligible expectation of privacy in the bank and business records.

The application was dismissed, and the court noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).

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 applicant, convicted of tax evasion and fined $687,000, applied for a ten-year extension to pay the outstanding fine.

The Crown consented to a two-year extension but sought an order for monthly payments.

The court granted the two-year extension without mandating monthly payments, noting the applicant's lack of financial disclosure and failure to seek employment, but finding that a monthly payment order would prioritize form over substance.

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.

In a criminal fraud prosecution, the accused brought Charter applications challenging the seizure of documents from a correctional facility and seeking exclusion of evidence and a stay for abuse of process.

The court held that the alleged statement by conduct arising from the accused packing his belongings was not proven voluntary and was inadmissible.

However, the court found no s. 8 breach because the correctional officer acted under delegated institutional authority when moving and taking custody of the inmate's belongings, and the documents would in any event have been admitted under s. 24(2).

The court also dismissed the s. 7 abuse of process application, finding no basis to review prosecutorial discretion despite contradictory testimony from the correctional officer.

The accused applied under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude documents seized from a correctional facility pursuant to a search warrant seeking handwriting samples connected to alleged tax fraud offences.

The court held that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents contained in institutional administrative files, but retained a limited privacy interest in personal papers stored in his jail cell.

Although a correctional officer lawfully seized the accused’s belongings under institutional authority in preparation for the warrant’s execution, the police officer exceeded the scope of the warrant by seizing all property without first determining whether items fell within its terms.

This constituted a breach of s. 8.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the breach unintentional, the privacy impact minimal, and the evidence important to the prosecution.

The accused was sentenced after a jury conviction on eight counts of tax evasion under the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act arising from failure to report approximately $1.5 million in income from a foreign exchange trading education business and failure to remit GST between 2003 and 2006.

The total tax evaded was approximately $475,000.

The court emphasized that general deterrence is the primary sentencing objective for tax evasion offences because the integrity of the taxation system depends on voluntary compliance.

Despite the offender’s lack of prior record and personal hardships following the charges, the court found significant aggravating factors including deliberate concealment of income and breach of trust regarding GST funds.

A custodial sentence was imposed along with a fine of 150% of the taxes evaded.

Sentencing decision for two counts of fraud over $5,000 arising from an extensive tax fraud scheme committed by a tax preparer.

The offender manipulated client tax returns to include false deductions and unmade charitable donations, resulting in more than $17 million in tax evasion and significant financial hardship for numerous victims following reassessments by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The court found numerous aggravating factors under section 380.1 of the Criminal Code, including the magnitude and planning of the fraud, the large number of victims, and the offender’s abuse of trust.

No mitigating factors were identified, particularly given the offender’s lack of remorse and flight from the jurisdiction prior to trial.

Emphasizing general and specific deterrence, the court imposed maximum concurrent custodial sentences and a substantial fine equal to the taxes evaded on one count.

The Crown applied for a ruling that a criminal trial had commenced and that the accused had absconded, seeking authorization to continue the proceedings in the accused’s absence under ss. 475 and 598 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, charged with large-scale tax fraud involving thousands of income tax returns and millions of dollars in understated tax liability, failed to appear for scheduled trial proceedings despite prior compliance with court appearances.

The court found that the accused had deliberately absconded and that the trial had commenced when pre-trial motions were heard following the preferring of the indictment.

The court further held that the accused had waived her election for a jury trial by failing to appear without legitimate excuse.

However, the court concluded that it was not yet in the interests of justice to proceed with the trial in the accused’s absence and adjourned the Crown’s application to allow further efforts to locate the accused.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings on charges of tax evasion, alleging abuse of process arising from late disclosure shortly before the scheduled trial.

The Crown had provided multiple volumes of trial materials days before trial, asserting that the documents largely contained previously disclosed records reorganized into trial volumes.

The court held that the materials constituted evidence intended to be tendered at trial and therefore fell within the Crown’s disclosure obligations under R. v. Stinchcombe, and that the disclosure was not provided sufficiently in advance of trial.

However, applying the abuse of process framework set out in R. v. Nixon, the court found that the prejudice alleged by the accused did not meet the high threshold required for a stay.

The adjournment of the trial, combined with the opportunity for the defence to review the new materials, was found to be an adequate remedy.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted by the trial judge due to unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown failed to justify the delay of over four and a half years from the laying of the initial charges, and that the trial judge's findings regarding the prejudice suffered by the respondent were fully supported by the record.