Hedieh Mehdi Zadeh Kashani

Criminal appeal from convictions for fentanyl trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, and firearms offences arising from a street arrest after police surveillance.

The appellant argued that police breached the duty to hold off questioning at arrest and during a later station interview, and that the resulting evidence should have been excluded under ss. 10(b) and 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal held that the arrest-scene questioning issue was not a live issue at trial, no additional s. 10(b) breach occurred before the interview, and the trial judge’s Grant analysis attracted deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at his residence and found a loaded prohibited handgun and extended magazines on his bed.

The accused testified that he had left his friends in his bedroom and slept in the basement, denying knowledge of the firearms.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as lacking credibility and found that the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly established his knowledge and constructive possession of the items.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed his firearms convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in denying him leave to cross-examine the affiant of a search warrant during a Garofoli application.

The police had conducted warrantless surveillance in the underground garage of the appellant's condominium to corroborate confidential informant tips, but omitted key details about this surveillance from the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garage and the information obtained, and that the trial judge erred in denying leave to cross-examine the affiant on the surveillance and the omissions in the ITO.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant challenged Charter rulings after police found fentanyl during a search incident to detention.

The court upheld the trial judge’s findings on search scope and right-to-counsel compliance and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought release pending appeal from serious firearm-related convictions and a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

Applying s. 679(3) criteria and public-interest balancing, the court held detention remained necessary and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing a firearm, carrying a concealed firearm, and carelessly storing a firearm.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The trial judge found that the appellant had joint possession of a firearm his brother displayed during an altercation at a McDonald's, based on the appellant's position and actions.

The trial judge also found the appellant was a party to the careless storage of two firearms discovered in an alley after police pursuit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the trial judge properly applied the legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and that her findings and inferences were reasonably available on the evidence.

The appellant, Rapinder Bains, appealed convictions for drug-related offences, arguing that the trial judge erred by applying a less onerous standard for entrapment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s approach, holding that it was open to the trial judge to infer from the Agreed Statement of Facts that the officer had the requisite subjective belief to proceed.

The appeal and the sentence appeal were both dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences arising from a traffic stop.

He argued the stop and subsequent search were the result of racial profiling, violating his Charter rights, and that the trial judge erred in admitting the firearm under s. 24(2) despite finding a s. 10(b) breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the stop was based on driving behaviour, not racial profiling, and that the subsequent investigative steps were lawfully based on observations made during the stop.

The court found no error in the trial judge's Grant analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for production and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant claimed his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) rights were breached due to a delay in providing a Vietnamese interpreter upon his arrest.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant factors, noting the delay was an isolated mistake, the appellant was not mistreated, and the evidence was obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant issued prior to the arrest.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.

In a prosecution for first-degree murder and attempted murder, the accused brought pre-trial motions challenging the search warrants for a residence and cell phones under s. 8 of the Charter, seeking exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The Crown brought a motion to adduce extrinsic misconduct evidence, including rap lyrics and videos of firearms found on the accused's phones.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter motions, finding the ITOs sufficient and admitting the evidence despite technical breaches regarding the timing of Reports to Justice.

The court partially granted the Crown's motion, admitting the rap lyrics and firearm videos as highly probative of animus and means, while excluding certain photographs due to prejudicial effect.

The accused, a young Black man, was stopped by police while driving and subsequently subjected to a pat-down search, arrest, and strip search, leading to the discovery of a loaded handgun and drugs.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging racial profiling and arbitrary detention.

The court found that the traffic stop was a pretext for a drug investigation and that racial profiling played a significant role in the suspect selection, rendering the detention and subsequent searches unlawful.

Finding multiple breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 15 of the Charter, the court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) and entered acquittals on all counts.