Jason A. Morische

The appellant appealed his sentence of 42 months imprisonment (less 6 months Downes credit and 12 days presentence custody credit) imposed for possession of 450 grams of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The appellant alleged the trial judge made various errors in principle rendering the sentence unfit.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was entirely fit and the Downes credit fell within the broad range of discretion afforded to the trial judge.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking methamphetamine and appealed, arguing the trial judge misapprehended photographic evidence concerning her knowledge of the bag's contents.

The Court of Appeal found that there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's finding that the appellant knew what was in the bag she passed.

The trial judge properly considered and rejected the defence's submission that the appellant passed the bag unwittingly, and correctly applied the law governing circumstantial evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence from the Superior Court of Justice.

The Crown acknowledged, after review of trial transcripts and an independent interpreter's assessment of audio recordings, that there were numerous and significant errors in the interpretation of the appellant's evidence during trial.

The appeal against conviction was allowed with the Crown's consent.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking following a vehicle stop and search.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's Charter application challenging the legality of the arrest and search.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by treating the existence of statutory authority to arrest for driving with a suspended licence as dispositive, without determining whether the officers subjectively formed an intention to arrest for the road safety purpose underlying that authority.

The court held that the trial judge failed to consider whether the traffic stop was a pretext to further a drug investigation.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her applications for prerogative relief and a Charter application challenging various provisions of the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The appellant was charged with six counts under the IRPA for providing immigration advice without proper credentials.

She sought declarations that reverse onus clauses and other statutory provisions violated her Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that since the appellant had been released on bail, the policy against granting Charter or prerogative relief during ongoing criminal proceedings applied.

The court also noted that the Crown's decision to prefer a direct indictment and stay the preliminary inquiries rendered the appeal moot.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking and the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in law by improperly using confidential informant information contained in the Information to Obtain (ITO) to support the trafficking finding.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The offender, Lawrence Watts, was found guilty of fraud exceeding $5,000 for preparing fraudulent income tax returns for 241 taxpayers, reporting non-existent business losses.

The intended loss to federal tax revenue was over $10 million, with an actual payout of $2.75 million.

Watts personally benefited by $149,128.11.

The court considered sentencing objectives, principles, and aggravating/mitigating factors, including the magnitude of the fraud, degree of planning, and breach of public trust.

Watts was sentenced to six years in federal penitentiary and ordered to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $149,129.11, with a default imprisonment term of two years consecutive.

The accused was charged with two counts of defrauding the Government of Canada contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused operated a business called Fiscal Arbitrators that prepared false income tax returns for numerous clients, charging fees plus a percentage of fraudulently obtained refunds.

A second count alleged similar fraud in relation to the accused's own personal tax returns.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown presented evidence from ten civilian witnesses whose tax returns had been prepared by Fiscal Arbitrators, as well as testimony from the lead investigator from the Canada Revenue Agency.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on both counts.