Jacob D. Roth

The accused was charged with failing to stop after an accident resulting in death under s. 320.16(3) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the accused had the requisite mens rea, specifically if he knew or was reckless as to whether his vehicle struck a pedestrian.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the subjective knowledge or recklessness, concluding that the evidence supported the inference that he believed he hit a "construction thingy" rather than a person.

The accused's conduct immediately after the accident was not indicative of someone trying to avoid detection.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted.

The court delivered oral reasons for sentence after Roger Jaggernauth was found guilty of attempted murder and counselling to commit murder.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a total sentence of 16.5 years custody, with credit for pre-sentencing custody.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the devastating impact on the victim, the domestic context of the offences, the victim's vulnerability, the fact the attack occurred at her home, and the extensive planning involved in the contract hit.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, pro-social history, and time spent on house arrest.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it proportionate and consistent with sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused, Roger Jaggernauth, was charged with attempted murder and counselling to commit murder.

The charges stemmed from a crossbow attack on Marlene Pimenta, his former partner, following a contentious separation and family law dispute over her financial investment in his home.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including Jaggernauth's strong motive, his solicitation of a "hitman" from a former biker club member (Paul Eakin), threatening utterances to his work supervisor (David Allan), and "heat conscious" after-the-fact conduct prior to being officially contacted by police.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence, viewed holistically, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jaggernauth orchestrated the attack with intent to kill and deliberately counselled murder.

The case involved charges of importing and possessing heroin for trafficking against two accused.

The central issue was the accused's knowledge of the parcel's contents.

The court applied the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule and found one accused guilty, while the other was acquitted due to lingering doubt regarding their knowledge.

This ruling addresses a voir dire during a judge-alone trial to determine the admissibility of electronic documents (Kijiji messages and email attachments) proffered by the defendant Sebastian Zamora.

Zamora, charged with importing and possessing heroin, sought to admit these documents as circumstantial evidence of his state of mind, arguing they provided context to cellular phone extractions relied upon by the Crown.

The Crown objected, arguing the documents were inadmissible hearsay and akin to prior consistent exculpatory statements.

The court found that the electronic documents met the authenticity and best evidence rules under the Canada Evidence Act, having been verified by a police officer.

The court ruled that the documents were admissible as circumstantial evidence, noting that their weight would be determined at the conclusion of all evidence, and that trial fairness required their admission to provide context to the Crown's evidence.

The appellants, Sebastian Zamora and Nicholas Poku, appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that quashed their discharge at a preliminary inquiry and committed them for trial on drug trafficking and importing charges.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the reviewing judge's decision, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by improperly weighing evidence and drawing inferences, which is the role of the trier of fact.

The court declined to address the issue of when the actus reus of the offence of importing is complete, deeming it an inappropriate forum for such clarification.