Ferhan Javed

The accused pleaded guilty to four criminal charges relating to his involvement in a large-scale, organized fraud scheme targeting the Business Development Bank of Canada.

The total loss to the BDC was $14 million, with the accused's involvement resulting in approximately $850,000 in fraudulent loans.

The accused received approximately $50,000 for his participation.

The court imposed a two-year conditional sentence with onerous restrictive terms, followed by three years of probation and a $50,000 restitution order.

The sentencing balanced the serious nature of the fraud and the need for deterrence and denunciation against the accused's peripheral role, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, early guilty plea, and willingness to cooperate with authorities.

The accused, a nightclub bouncer and a patron, were charged with aggravated assault following a violent altercation at a crowded nightclub.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from security personnel, the victim, and the victim's friend, as well as a statement from the bouncer's former girlfriend.

The court found the eyewitness identification evidence to be highly unreliable due to poor lighting, chaotic circumstances, inconsistencies, and evidence of collusion between the victim and his friend.

The court also admitted prior consistent statements from the bouncer.

Finding the Crown's evidence insufficient to prove identity and participation beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted both accused.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents on charges of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge had excluded the evidence obtained from a search warrant, finding the Information to Obtain (ITO) was carelessly drafted, materially misleading, and factually incomplete, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to apply the proper test of whether a sufficient basis remained to issue the warrant after excising any offending portions.

The Court also held that even if there was a breach, the evidence should not have been excluded under s. 24(2) given the respondents' reduced expectation of privacy in the premises.