Faisal Mirza

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime.

The Crown alleged the appellant was the supplier to a co-conspirator who dealt directly with an undercover officer.

The trial judge found the appellant and the co-conspirator were engaged in a conspiracy to traffic cocaine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge and concluding that the conviction for possession of proceeds of crime flowed directly from the trafficking conviction.

The appellants were convicted of kidnapping with intent to confine after holding an innocent victim for ransom over a drug dispute.

On appeal, they challenged the admission of a confession made by one appellant, arguing it was involuntary, violated Charter rights, and breached spousal privilege.

They also appealed their sentences, arguing they offended the parity principle compared to a co-accused who pleaded guilty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's admission of the statement or refusal to edit out co-accused names.

The sentence appeals were also dismissed, as the sentences reflected the appellants' respective roles and were not a marked departure from the range.

The appellant, a youth at the time of his initial involvement, was convicted of participating in a terrorist group after attending training camps and committing acts such as shoplifting and removing a surveillance camera.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, erred in admitting his post-arrest statement despite Charter breaches, improperly admitted hearsay evidence under the co-conspirators' exception, and failed to stay proceedings for abuse of process and entrapment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the record, the Charter breaches did not warrant exclusion of the statement under s. 24(2), the hearsay evidence was properly admitted, and the police conduct did not amount to entrapment or an abuse of process.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after striking the victim in the head with a metal bar during an altercation in a truck.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to correct a misstatement in the Crown's closing address regarding when certain photographs of the truck's interior were taken, and by accepting the jury's verdict before answering a question the jury had asked about those photographs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the misstatement did not require a correcting instruction and that the trial judge acted appropriately in accepting the verdict with the agreement of counsel.

The 16-year-old applicant was charged with second degree murder and attempted murder.

He was initially ordered detained solely on the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant sought a review of the detention order.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by failing to consider releasing the youth to a responsible person under s. 31 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Additionally, fresh evidence from the preliminary inquiry showed the Crown's case was less compelling than originally presented.

The Court granted the application and ordered the youth released into the care of his grandparents under strict conditions, including house arrest.

The appellant appealed his sentence of one year imprisonment, two years probation, and a $199,083 restitution order for three counts of obtaining credit cards by fraud.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custodial sentence, finding it fit for a large-scale commercial fraud.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part regarding the restitution order, reducing it to $35,000 based on the appellant's ability to pay.

The police responded to a 911 call reporting individuals with handguns in a strip club parking lot.

Officers set up a roadblock at the exit and stopped the first vehicle to leave.

The occupants, who matched the general description of the suspects, were asked to exit the vehicle.

One occupant fled, was apprehended, and found to possess a loaded handgun.

The other occupant was subsequently searched, and a loaded handgun was also found on him.

The trial judge admitted the evidence, but the Court of Appeal excluded it, finding violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the initial detention and subsequent searches were justified under the common law police powers and did not violate the Charter.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for offences involving the use of a semiautomatic handgun against security guards at a nightclub.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by sentencing him on each count before dealing with Kienapple stays, and that the sentence was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge should have dealt with the stays first, but found no error meriting intervention.

The global sentence of 11 years was upheld as reasonable given the serious nature of the offences, emphasizing general deterrence.