Faizal R. Mirza

The accused, charged with terrorism offences for allegedly attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State, appeared for a mandatory detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court conducted a bail hearing 'from the ground up'.

The court found that the Crown's case was not overwhelmingly strong, as there was no direct evidence the accused intended to enhance the terrorist group's ability to carry out terrorist activities, nor any history of violence.

The court concluded that the accused's detention was not justified under the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds, and ordered her release on a $100,000 surety bail with strict conditions, including a ban on social media and internet monitoring.

The Crown appealed the absolute discharge granted to the respondent following his conviction for a sexual assault.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge erred in finding genuine remorse, assessing moral blameworthiness, and concluding a discharge was not contrary to the public interest.

The Crown also argued a SOIRA order was mandatory.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion and holding that binding appellate authority establishes that a SOIRA order cannot be made when an offender is granted a discharge.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference involving his distant cousin between the ages of 7 to 9 years old.

The allegations involved two incidents: touching of the complainant's genital area during a family gathering in a bedroom, and touching of the complainant's anus during a piggy-back ride in a lake at a camping trip.

The complainant testified via closed-circuit television at age 15, and her videotaped police statement was admitted.

The accused denied both incidents.

The court found that while the complainant presented as sincere, her evidence suffered from significant reliability problems including inconsistencies regarding material details, problematic circumstances of disclosure to family members prior to police involvement, and concerns with the manner in which the police interview was conducted.

The court found the accused's denials credible and determined the Crown had not discharged its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash their committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry involving alleged drug trafficking and firearms offences connected to a stash house.

They argued the preliminary inquiry justice exceeded jurisdiction by relying on speculative inferences to find some evidence of knowledge and control over the contraband necessary to establish constructive possession.

The reviewing court held that the preliminary inquiry justice properly considered the totality and context of the circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, surveillance, and the conduct of alleged co-conspirators.

The inferences of knowledge and control supporting constructive possession and conspiracy were reasonably available on the record.

As a result, no jurisdictional error was established and the committal decision stood.

The appellant was convicted of attempting to live off the avails of prostitution of a person under 18 and aiding the complainant to engage in prostitution.

At trial, the Crown introduced extensive evidence of extrinsic misconduct, including text messages, online advertisements, and provocative photographs found on the appellant's computer and cell phones, which were not directly connected to the complainant.

The trial judge failed to provide a limiting instruction to the jury warning against propensity reasoning.

The Court of Appeal held that this failure was a reversible error, as there was a real risk the jury would use the evidence to conclude the appellant was a bad person likely to have committed the offences.

The curative proviso was not applied, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The conviction rested entirely on the evidence of the complainant, who had admitted to fabricating a detailed story to the police about a doctor's visit and pregnancy test.

The Court of Appeal found that the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and that the trial judge's instructions to the jury failed to adequately highlight the significance of her fabricated evidence.

The Court concluded that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could not have rendered a guilty verdict based exclusively on this evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and an acquittal entered.

The appellants were committed to stand trial for first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

They applied for certiorari to quash the committals, arguing a denial of natural justice because they were not permitted to make submissions on post-offence conduct evidence.

The reviewing judge found a denial of natural justice but dismissed the application, concluding the appellants suffered no prejudice as committal was inevitable.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that a reviewing judge has inherent jurisdiction to refuse certiorari where no prejudice occurs, and found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation to support the committals.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentences imposed on two black single mothers who pleaded guilty to importing cocaine.

The trial judge had introduced his own research on systemic racial and gender bias, concluding these factors mitigated their culpability and justified conditional sentences.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge overstepped his role by acting as advocate, witness, and judge, and erred in principle by imposing conditional sentences for a serious offence like importing cocaine.

Although the appropriate sentences would have been custodial terms of 20 months and two years less a day, the Court dismissed the appeal because the respondents had already served 17 months of their conditional sentences, and incarcerating them now would cause undue hardship.