Israel Gencher

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death, following a single-vehicle collision that resulted in the death of one passenger and injuries to another.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver.

The court analyzed extensive civilian and expert evidence, including accident reconstruction, occupant kinematics, and medical records.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the collision and entered findings of guilt on all counts.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from two incidents, including sexual assault, assault, uttering threats, unlawful entry, and breaches of recognizance conditions.

The court applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.) and rejected the accused’s testimony, finding it unreliable and inconsistent with the surrounding evidence.

The complainant’s account of the February incident was accepted, supported by medical evidence of cervical bruising and corroborative circumstances.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, assault in an elevator, uttering threats including threats to kill the complainant’s dog, unlawful entry into the complainant’s apartment, and several recognizance breaches.

However, the accused was acquitted of assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon due to insufficient corroboration and lack of independent evidence regarding the alleged knife incident.

The accused was convicted after trial of offering a bribe to foreign public officials contrary to s. 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

The bribery scheme involved a sophisticated plan to pay millions of dollars to officials of a foreign airline and a cabinet minister to secure a lucrative technology contract.

The court emphasized that bribery of foreign officials undermines the rule of law and Canada’s international obligations and that the dominant sentencing principles are denunciation and general deterrence.

Although the accused had no prior criminal record, cooperated extensively, and the scheme ultimately failed, the court found that the seriousness and planning of the offence required a penitentiary sentence.

A custodial term of three years was imposed.

The accused was charged under s. 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act for agreeing to offer bribes to officials of a foreign state-owned airline and the country’s Minister of Civil Aviation in order to secure a contract for biometric facial recognition technology.

The Crown alleged that the accused conspired with corporate executives and intermediaries to arrange payments and other benefits to influence the tender process.

The defence argued that no actual bribe to a specific foreign official was proven and that Canada lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The court held that the offence under the Act includes agreements or conspiracies to offer bribes and does not require proof that a bribe was ultimately delivered.

Applying the “real and substantial connection” test, the court found sufficient jurisdiction because a Canadian company, Canadian agents, and significant conduct related to the scheme were based in Canada.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences involving a young person in a relationship of dependency, as well as assault-related offences.

The trial centred on credibility, with the court applying the framework from R. v. W.(D.) to assess conflicting testimony between the complainant and defence witnesses.

The court accepted the complainant’s detailed and consistent evidence, finding it corroborated in part by contemporaneous writings and surrounding circumstances.

The accused’s denial and supporting testimony from family members were rejected as unreliable and biased.

The court convicted the accused on four sexual offence counts and one count of simple assault but acquitted on a separate assault count and on assault with a weapon.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for possession of cocaine contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and reached an unreasonable verdict.

The cocaine was discovered in a plastic bag located beside the appellant’s seat in a vehicle after police removed him from the passenger seat.

The trial judge inferred knowledge and control based on the proximity of the drugs and their visibility once the appellant exited the vehicle.

The appellate court held that the trial judge’s findings of fact and credibility were entitled to deference and that the inference of possession was reasonably supported by the evidence.

No palpable and overriding error or misapprehension of evidence was established.

The applicant sought a stay of criminal proceedings unless the state funded her legal representation through a Rowbotham order under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

She faced multiple drug trafficking and possession charges and alleged she lacked the financial means to retain counsel after her Legal Aid certificate was cancelled.

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that she exhausted all Legal Aid appeal avenues, that she was indigent, or that her right to a fair trial would be materially compromised without state-funded counsel.

Evidence showed the applicant had employment income and discretionary expenses and could potentially benefit from legal arguments advanced by a co‑accused’s counsel challenging the search warrant.

The application for state-funded counsel and a stay of proceedings was dismissed.