Gordon Omar Akilie

The accused, Mario Bixhi, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of cannabis for the purpose of distributing and selling, possession of proceeds of crime, willfully resisting a police officer, and taking a weapon from a peace officer.

The case arose from a search warrant executed at Bixhi’s apartment.

The court found Bixhi guilty of the cannabis-related offences and resisting/taking a weapon from police, but acquitted him of the cocaine trafficking charge, finding a reasonable doubt as to his knowledge and control over the cocaine, given the evidence of a third party who claimed sole responsibility for the cocaine.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Larry Bomberry guilty of possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possessing property obtained by crime.

Despite thin evidence of active trafficking at the time of arrest, the court held that the quantity of drugs (62.48 grams) and over $1,400 in cash supported the inference that Bomberry possessed the drugs as part of an ongoing trafficking operation.

The court rejected Bomberry’s claim that the drugs were for personal use based on implausible explanations for his cash, inconsistent timeline evidence, and expert testimony on trafficking indicia.

The decision applies the W.(D.) principles and the Villaroman circumstantial evidence framework to conclude that trafficking was the only reasonable inference.

The accused, Jiapeng Wu, was charged with second-degree murder.

The central issue at trial was whether he was a party to the murder under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, specifically if he subjectively knew that murder was a probable consequence of the planned robbery.

The Crown argued that the accused orchestrated the violent robbery and foresaw the probable use of a firearm and murder.

The defence contended that the accused only intended robbery, not murder.

The court found the Crown's principal witness credible despite prior inconsistencies.

Considering the accused's history of violent currency exchange robberies, his role as organizer, his arming of accomplices with loaded handguns, and his post-offence conduct, the court concluded that the accused subjectively knew murder was a probable consequence.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The defence applied to exclude evidence of prior discreditable conduct, known as the "Austin incident," in a murder and aggravated assault trial involving Tyrone Chambers and Joshua Warner.

The Austin incident, a minor assault accompanied by a threat to shoot, occurred shortly before the main shootings.

The defence argued its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The Crown contended the incident was relevant to the accused's knowledge of each other's gun possession, their willingness to back each other up, and the overall narrative of the night's events, forming part of a continuing transaction.

Applying the R. v. Handy test for similar fact evidence, the court treated the Austin incident as prior discreditable conduct but found its high probative value, particularly concerning narrative, the accused's knowledge and state of mind, Section 21 party liability, and self-defence, greatly outweighed the limited moral and reasoning prejudice.

The court ruled the evidence admissible.

The accused was charged with Theft under $5000 and Possession of Property Obtained by Crime for items stolen from two vehicles in a parking garage.

While the Crown established all elements of the offences except identity through surveillance video evidence, the court found that the identification evidence was insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The surveillance video lacked sufficient clarity to identify the accused, and the constable's recognition evidence, based on limited prior contact, was unreliable.

The charges were dismissed and an acquittal was entered.