Edward Prutschi

The accused, the CEO of a Shariah-compliant home financing company and the chair of its Shariah Ethics Board, were charged with theft, fraud, money laundering, and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act offences.

The charges arose after the company was ordered into receivership and the CEO used company funds to purchase over $2 million in gold and silver bullion, which he claimed was to pay the Ethics Board for past services in accordance with Islamic finance principles.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the mens rea for the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, as the CEO had an honest belief, based on the Mudarabah partnership structure and Shariah law, that he was authorized to use the funds for this purpose.

Both accused were acquitted of all charges.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in property obtained by crime and possession of property obtained by crime after police discovered $1,136,555 in cash in his vehicle.

The primary issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the funds were proceeds of crime.

The appellant testified he believed the money was "Shoah Gelt" (money belonging to Jewish people in Europe or Asia seeking to move funds to safety).

The trial judge rejected this testimony and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on three grounds: improper application of the W.(D.) test, insufficient reasons for conviction, and a grossly disproportionate sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of child pornography.

He argued that evidence of two pairs of underwear found in his possession upon arrest should have been excluded because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, and that the trial judge erred by failing to give a limiting instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence was relevant, no objection was made at trial, and a limiting instruction was unnecessary given the defense's position.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit.

The Crown appealed an order quashing a committal for second degree murder and substituting a committal for manslaughter in the death of a 34-month-old child.

The reviewing judge had found insufficient evidence of the subjective intent required for murder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the reviewing judge erred by looking at the medical evidence in isolation and failing to consider the cumulative effect of the evidence, which could support an inference of the requisite intent.

The committal for second degree murder was restored.

A partner at a treatment centre commenced arbitration applications for statutory accident benefits in the names of two former patients.

The patients had previously settled their claims and paid the treatment centre's account in full.

The arbitrator found that the authorizations filed by the treatment provider were forged and that the patients had not authorized the proceedings.

Finding that the treatment provider commenced the arbitration on his own account and abused the tribunal's process, the arbitrator amended the style of cause to make the provider the applicant and ordered him to pay the expenses of the patients and the insurer before being permitted to withdraw the applications.