Feroza Bhabha

The appellants were convicted of multiple offences arising from three home invasion robberies.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an accomplice, supported by circumstantial and frail identification evidence.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in admitting the identification evidence, instructing the jury on confirmatory evidence, and defining reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions or evidentiary rulings.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the ten-year sentence was reduced to five years, considering the appellant's youth, rehabilitation efforts, and the appropriate sentencing range for first offenders.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for attempted murder arising from a stabbing outside a restaurant, and also appealed a sentence of seven years and four months' imprisonment.

The principal issues were the admissibility of prior-incident evidence, the adequacy of the party-liability instruction in light of a jury question about non-intervention and indirect involvement, the intent instruction, the reasonableness of the verdict, and sentence fitness.

A majority would dismiss the conviction appeal, grant leave to appeal sentence, and dismiss the sentence appeal, holding that the prior incidents were admissible contextual and motive evidence, the charge on parties and intent was adequate, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.

In dissent, one judge would allow the conviction appeal and order a new trial because the jury may have convicted on an erroneous omission-based party-liability theory.

The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting weapon evidence following a search.

The court applied the Collins framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter and held that the trial judge did not err in her treatment of the second and third categories of factors.

Although the trial judge did not expressly address the degree of departure from reasonable and probable grounds, the court found any departure was not significant in light of officer safety concerns, limited opportunity for further investigation, and the matching informant description.

The finding of good faith was reasonably supported by the evidence, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a robbery conviction arising from a judge-alone trial, arguing improper limits on cross-examination of the Crown's main witness, failure to properly apply a Vetrovec warning, error in assessing alibi evidence, and an unreasonable verdict.

The court held that the trial judge erred in prohibiting cross-examination on the underlying facts of the witness's criminal record, but found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the trial judge appreciated the relevance of the record and the ruling had minimal effect on the defence.

The court rejected the remaining grounds, concluding that the cautionary approach to the witness's evidence was adequate, the alibi did not negate opportunity, and the verdict was open on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application for certiorari seeking to quash a committal for trial on a charge of second degree murder.

The court held that the committing judge correctly instructed himself on the limited function of a preliminary inquiry judge under governing Supreme Court authorities.

Relying on authorities confirming that a preliminary inquiry judge is not to assess witness credibility, the court found no jurisdictional error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which had allowed a Crown appeal from an acquittal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge stated a conclusion before the trial was completed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's reasons for ordering a new trial.