Jason A. Morische

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from a wiretap investigation into contraband tobacco activity, the accused faced two laundering counts, one cannabis count, and one forgery count.

The court applied the Villaroman framework to the circumstantial case and the Carter co-conspirator hearsay test to the real-estate laundering and forgery allegations.

The court found the accused guilty of laundering proceeds in relation to one stolen silver ingot and in relation to a real-estate project funded with proceeds of contraband tobacco, and guilty of possessing CBD powder for the purpose of distribution.

The court held that possession for the purpose of selling illegal cannabis was captured by s. 9(2) of the Cannabis Act.

The forgery count was dismissed because the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused joined or understood the conspiracy's object.

The applicant sought relief in a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

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.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft pleaded guilty to 60 charges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, including 58 counts of unlawfully importing vehicles that did not conform to prescribed vehicle emissions standards and two counts of providing misleading information.

The company admitted to installing defeat devices in approximately 128,000 diesel vehicles imported into Canada between 2008 and 2015, which allowed the vehicles to pass emissions testing while emitting substantially higher nitrogen oxide levels during normal driving conditions.

The court imposed a fine of $196,500,000, the largest environmental fine in Canadian history at that time, reflecting the severity of the deliberate deception, the environmental and health risks created, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

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 applicant brought an application for certiorari raising multiple complaints regarding his prior drug convictions, including alleged disclosure failures, abuse of process, and delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

He also sought to review the denial of a private prosecution and the quashing of related subpoenas.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review an earlier conviction made in the same court, noting that such matters must be directed to the Court of Appeal.

The court further found that the private prosecution issues were procedurally defective and brought in the wrong venue.

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 applied for particulars under s. 587(1) of the Criminal Code in relation to a fraud charge alleging he participated in preparing false T1 income tax returns defrauding the Government of Canada of more than $5,000.

The accused argued the indictment was vague and failed to specify whether the alleged victim was the public or a person, identify co-participants, and identify the individuals referenced in the indictment.

The court held that a fraud against the Government of Canada clearly constitutes a fraud against the public and rejected the accused’s reliance on contrary appellate authority.

The court further found that the accused had already received extensive disclosure, including the identities of the 241 individuals whose tax returns were involved.

The indictment contained sufficient detail to comply with s. 581 of the Criminal Code, and the request for further particulars was dismissed.

The accused applied to quash production orders and search warrants obtained during a CRA criminal investigation into alleged tax-related fraud.

He argued that the Income Tax Act had not been proven to have received Royal Assent, that Ontario Court of Justice judges lacked jurisdiction to issue the warrants, and that requests for his tax returns violated his Charter rights under ss. 7 and 8.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that consolidated statutes published by the Minister constitute evidence of the statute’s existence, that Criminal Code investigative powers permit warrants issued by a justice, and that the requests to file overdue tax returns did not violate the Charter.

After excising references to the accused’s later tax returns from the information to obtain, the court found that reasonable grounds for the search warrants remained.

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.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order concluding the proceedings without a hearing, subject to extensive terms and conditions on the applicants' registration, including restrictions on personnel, advertising, record-keeping, and financial responsibility.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Following pre-hearing discussions, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the proceedings be disposed of without a hearing based on the agreed terms, which included the applicant completing a certification course, restrictions on his roles at a dealership, and strict disclosure obligations regarding vehicle history.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the Applicant's recent conviction for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and false statements made on his application regarding his criminal involvement and employment history.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's version of events on his application was false and misleading, contradicting the facts admitted during his guilty plea.

The Tribunal concluded that the serious nature of the conviction and the Applicant's failure to take full responsibility provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal.