2 total
The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction for attempting to obstruct justice, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or refusal to stay proceedings over lost evidence.
The appellant appealed his conviction for attempting to obstruct justice contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code.
The conviction arose from allegations that while in custody, the appellant wrote letters to another inmate requesting false evidence concerning prior convictions.
The trial judge convicted the appellant despite the loss of the original letters prior to the re-trial.
The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge shifted the burden of proof when assessing the evidence of the key witness; (2) the trial judge failed to properly apply Vetrovec principles regarding the credibility of an unsavoury witness; and (3) the trial judge erred in dismissing the stay application based on the prejudice caused by the loss of the original letters.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.
Two accused were convicted of mortgage fraud for submitting false income and rental documents.
The Crown charged three defendants with obtaining credit by false pretence and knowingly causing a mortgage broker to act upon fraudulent rental agreements in connection with a $639,000 mortgage application.
Mohammed Raja was acquitted of both charges.
Saira Khan was acquitted of the second charge but convicted of obtaining credit by false pretence based on her knowledge and acquiescence to false income representations.
Michael Majeed was convicted of both obtaining credit by false pretence and knowingly causing the broker to act upon forged rental agreements, and acquitted of failing to comply with a recognizance.
The court found that Majeed actively orchestrated the fraud by providing false rental agreements he knew to be fraudulent, while Khan's liability stemmed from her silence and signature on the mortgage commitment document despite knowing her income was misrepresented.
