F. 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.