Dr. David Ruddell

The accused was charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing incident at an apartment.

The accused admitted to causing the death and injuries but raised the defence of advanced intoxication due to polysubstance abuse (alcohol, methamphetamine, and fentanyl).

The court rejected the accused's testimony regarding his memory and consumption at the scene, finding his post-offence conduct demonstrated an ability to foresee the consequences of his actions.

The court found the accused had the requisite intent for second-degree murder under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, convicting the accused of the lesser included offence of aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated assault following an execution-style shooting at a bird-dog trial event.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including motive, opportunity, and post-offence conduct, as well as eyewitness identification.

The court found significant discrepancies in the eyewitness descriptions of the shooter and the shooter's vehicle compared to the accused and his vehicle.

Applying the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the identity of the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

Three defendants were charged with twelve offences arising from a shooting incident at a strip mall parking lot in Ottawa on September 1, 2018.

The Crown alleged that Haji Ragab was the shooter, Paraparan was the driver of the getaway vehicle, and Hope was a passenger.

All three were charged with various firearm-related offences.

The trial judge found that while the Crown proved the three defendants were in the vehicle at the scene, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Haji Ragab was the shooter or that Paraparan was the driver.

Critically, the Crown also failed to prove that any defendant possessed the firearm, as the weapon was never recovered and the Crown could not establish that the item used was a firearm as defined by the Criminal Code.

All charges were dismissed against all defendants.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing Arash Bakhtaryani at a banquet hall in Vaughan.

The appellant admitted to the shooting but claimed lawful self-defence.

The jury rejected the self-defence claim and convicted him of second-degree murder.

The trial judge imposed a life sentence with a 16-year parole ineligibility period.

On appeal, the appellant raised five grounds of appeal regarding the admission of hearsay evidence, confirmatory evidence instructions, cross-examination tactics, self-defence instructions, and jury instructions regarding videotape playback.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld both the conviction and sentence.