D. Paradkar

The accused, charged with multiple firearms and stolen vehicle offences, sought a bail review under s. 520 and s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being detained on the tertiary ground.

The accused proposed a new release plan involving his father, a correctional officer residing in New Brunswick, as a surety.

The court found that the new release plan constituted a material change in circumstances and that the Crown had not shown that continued detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was granted interim judicial release on strict conditions, including house arrest and significant financial pledges from sureties.

The applicant, facing extradition to the United States on charges of human smuggling, applied for release on bail.

The United States alleged the applicant led a scheme to smuggle Indian nationals into the US from Canada.

The court found that the applicant failed to justify his release on the primary ground, as he posed a significant flight risk given his tenuous immigration status in Canada, lack of assets, and the strong case against him.

The court also found detention was necessary on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.

The three accused faced various charges relating to the importation of 29 kilograms of heroin and 600 grams of opium concealed in a shipping container of marble stone.

At the close of the Crown's case, all three accused brought motions for directed verdicts.

The court dismissed the motions brought by two of the accused, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer their knowledge and participation in the drug importation and trafficking scheme.

However, the court granted the motion for the third accused, the consignee of the shipment, finding no evidence reasonably capable of supporting an inference that he knew about the drugs, and entered not guilty verdicts on his charges.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon after stabbing his childhood friend during an altercation at his home.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the victim attacked him with a knife.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent, finding that he had a motive based on jealousy and that his after-the-fact conduct of retrieving his passport indicated guilt.

The court accepted the victim's testimony that the attack was unprovoked.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The defence challenged the validity of a search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing the police affiant included misleading statements in the Information to Obtain (ITO) by describing suspected drug exchanges as observed 'hand-to-hand transactions'.

The court found the affiant's drafting errors were due to inexperience rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

After excising the problematic statements, the court concluded the remaining information from confidential informants and police surveillance provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The Charter challenge was dismissed and the accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with procuring two women to become prostitutes and exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of one of them for the purpose of gain.

The court found that the accused manipulated and coerced the first complainant, a vulnerable young woman with significant debt, into stripping, performing 'extras', and escorting, while taking the money she earned.

The accused was found guilty of the charges relating to the first complainant.

However, the court found the second complainant was a strong, independent woman who made her own choice to dance for money without being procured by the accused, resulting in an acquittal on that count.

During a criminal jury trial involving allegations including kidnapping and extortion, the Crown sought to introduce oral statements attributed to one accused that differed from the version summarized in an earlier pre‑trial ruling on voluntariness.

The updated police testimony suggested that the accused named co‑accused as involved in the offence.

The trial judge held that the credibility of the differing versions of the statement was a matter for the jury and that the earlier ruling on voluntariness could not be revisited mid‑trial based on a changed evidentiary landscape.

Applying the discretionary exclusionary framework for prejudicial evidence, the court concluded that the probative value of the “new” version was not outweighed by prejudice to the co‑accused.

The statement would therefore be admitted without editing, with appropriate limiting instructions to the jury that it could only be used against the declarant accused.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Six days before the scheduled trial, the defence brought a Charter application seeking to exclude the drugs and money seized, but failed to file an Application Record or Book of Authorities as required by the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The Crown brought an application to dismiss the defence's Charter application under Rule 34.03.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the defence's non-compliance with the rules was serious and prejudicial to the Crown, the history of the proceedings showed numerous missed opportunities to bring the application, and the Charter application itself had little to no merit.

The accused, Mechelle Rogers, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 1.5 kg of cocaine in the trunk of a vehicle in which she was a passenger.

At the close of the Crown's case, she brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict based on circumstantial evidence and the law of constructive possession.

The court found that while there was evidence she knew illegal activity was taking place, there was no evidence she knew the substance was cocaine or had any control over it.

The motion was granted and a directed verdict of acquittal was entered.