Grace Hession David

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault at trial and appealed on three grounds: erroneous admission of spontaneous utterance evidence, improper assessment of alibi evidence, and improper assessment of identification evidence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by majority, with the dissenting judge finding the trial judge failed to conduct the required analysis of identification evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada, by majority (Moldaver, Côté, and Brown JJ.), dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal.

Karakatsanis and Martin JJ. dissented and would have allowed the appeal for the reasons of the Court of Appeal dissent.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two counts of breaching his bail.

The police arrested the appellant after observing him with an individual they believed was not his surety, contrary to his bail conditions.

The trial judge accepted the officers' evidence that the individual was not the surety, despite a description matching one of the sureties.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed to address the apparent conflict in the identification evidence and its impact on the reliability of the officers' testimony.

The accused was charged with multiple serious offences including fraud over $5,000 in association with a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic firearms and cocaine, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown sought detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court found that while the accused met his onus on the primary ground due to strong supervision conditions including electronic monitoring and house arrest, he failed to meet his onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found credible evidence of multiple breaches of prior bail conditions, membership in a criminal organization, and a substantial likelihood of committing further offences that would imperil public safety.

The court also found that detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the serious nature of the charges and the overwhelming wiretap evidence.

The accused was detained.

The accused, Ahmed Farah, was found guilty by a jury of weapons trafficking for the benefit of a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic firearms, and unlawful possession of a firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his leadership role in the "Dixon City Bloods" gang, extensive criminal record, and efforts to evade police, and mitigating factors such as his age, education, family support, and aspirations for a positive lifestyle.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment, reduced to 8 years after accounting for four years of pre-sentence custody credit, despite the accused's significant institutional misconduct.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication order.

The court also ordered that the accused serve one-half of his sentence for the criminal organization offence before parole eligibility, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

This ruling addresses the admissibility and scope of expert evidence from Det. John Margetson regarding coded language in illicit drug culture during a criminal trial for weapons and drug trafficking.

The court found Det. Margetson qualified as an expert in street-level drug distribution and allowed him to testify on general drug trafficking techniques, prices, methods, and common coded language/slang.

However, he was prohibited from providing contextual interpretations of specific intercepted private communications or offering opinions on the comparative likelihood of meanings in specific factual circumstances, to prevent the expert from usurping the jury's role as the trier of fact on the ultimate issue.

In a joint trial for firearms and drug trafficking offences associated with a criminal organization, the Crown sought to introduce non-expert recognition evidence from a police officer identifying several non-accused individuals in photographs found on the accused's electronic devices.

The accused objected, arguing the officer lacked sufficient prior acquaintance, the evidence was hearsay, and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The court applied the 'prior acquaintance/better position' test and ruled the evidence admissible for seven of the eight individuals, finding the officer had sufficient prior interactions to reliably identify them and that the self-identification fell under a recognized hearsay exception or was admissible for a non-hearsay purpose.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 for his role in an investment scheme where funds were diverted from a promised offshore investment to a retirement home project.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine if the accused was the directing and controlling mind of the fraud.

The court reviewed the accused's corporate positions, his role in soliciting investors, and his control over the flow of funds.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the directing and controlling mind of the fraud.

The accused sought bail review of a detention order made in relation to serious firearm trafficking and criminal organization charges arising from a large police investigation.

The review court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances based on new proposed sureties and a proposed GPS electronic monitoring plan, and whether the justice of the peace erred in detaining the accused on the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court held the justice of the peace properly considered the statutory factors, including the strength of the Crown’s case, gravity of firearm trafficking offences, and potential penitentiary sentence, and did not err in ordering detention to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The proposed new supervision plan, including electronic monitoring, did not constitute a material change and did not adequately address the risk of re‑offending.

The bail review application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud over $5,000 arising from a scheme in which he falsely held himself out as a sophisticated investment professional and induced vulnerable investors to entrust him with funds.

The frauds targeted elderly and financially unsophisticated victims and resulted in losses exceeding $1.1 million.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as the dominant sentencing objectives in large-scale commercial fraud, noting the offender’s manipulative conduct, breach of trust, and devastating impact on victims.

Although the offender had no prior criminal record and entered a guilty plea, the court found a penitentiary sentence necessary.

The court also ordered restitution in the full amount of the victims’ losses despite limited prospects of repayment, emphasizing the seriousness of the breach of trust and the victims’ interests.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 arising from a scheme while employed as an accounting manager, but admitted only approximately $303,000 in fraudulent cheque alterations.

The Crown sought to prove a much larger loss at a Gardiner hearing, alleging total fraud exceeding $1.3 million through additional cheques, direct deposits, petty cash withdrawals, and personal purchases charged to the employer.

The court reviewed evidence from internal and forensic investigations, including missing vendor documentation, forged approvals, and irregular payments recorded in the accounting system.

The court found that most of the disputed payments lacked legitimate business justification and were obtained through dishonest means.

The proven total fraud was determined to be approximately $936,000 for sentencing purposes.