Jeanette Gevikoglu

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from her 2010 convictions, citing unforeseen immigration consequences that recently culminated in an admissibility hearing.

She argued her guilty plea was uninformed regarding collateral consequences and raised potential ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the applicant acted promptly upon receiving notice of the admissibility hearing and that there were arguable grounds of appeal, making the extension in the interests of justice.

The Attorney General of Canada sought forfeiture of a residential property at 15 Tamora Court in Toronto pursuant to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the conviction of the respondents' adult son for drug trafficking offences.

The respondents, who were charged but had their charges withdrawn, claimed they were innocent of any complicity or collusion in the offences and that forfeiture would be disproportionate.

The court found the respondents appeared innocent under section 19(3) of the CDSA and ordered the property returned to them.

Alternatively, the court found forfeiture would be disproportionate under section 19.1(3) and revoked the restraint order.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 8 Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search incident to arrest, contending that the confidential informant's tip lacked sufficient corroboration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the Debot test and was justified in determining that the arrest was subjectively and objectively reasonable given the informant's proven reliability and the specific information provided.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting her evidence that she feared police would seize her money as proceeds of crime after returning it the previous day.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inference was reasonably available on the evidence and there was no basis to interfere with the credibility assessment.

The appellant was arrested without a warrant for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police received tips from confidential informants and observed him discarding a digital scale with cocaine residue.

A frisk search yielded cellphones and money but no drugs, prompting a strip search at the police station which uncovered drugs hidden between his buttocks.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the arrest and the decision to strip search were lawful.

However, the Court found that the strip search was conducted in an unreasonable manner, violating section 8 of the Charter, because the door was left open, the search was videotaped without consent, and the appellant was not given the option to remove the drugs himself.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant pled guilty to eight offences related to a large-scale ephedrine exportation business, including money laundering and tax evasion, and was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by imposing a custodial sentence instead of a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding that the custodial sentence was fit for a sophisticated, large-scale fraud enterprise.

The court sentenced an offender for firearm and drug trafficking offences arising from the operation of a large marihuana processing and distribution enterprise.

The offender possessed a handgun with accessible ammunition in his bedroom at the location used for drug processing and packaging.

The court held the firearm functioned as a tool of the drug trade and imposed consecutive sentences for the drug trafficking and firearm offences, rejecting the joint submission for a fully concurrent global sentence.

The offender’s request for additional credit based on alleged stringent bail conditions was denied.

The court granted a DNA order and ordered forfeiture of large sums of cash and 70% of the offender’s residence as offence‑related property and proceeds of crime.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging unreasonable delay in the period following the initial trial date.

The court examined the approximately eighteen‑month period between the Charter exclusion ruling and the eventual sentencing and forfeiture proceedings.

Applying the factors from Supreme Court jurisprudence on delay, the court found the delay largely attributable to inherent case requirements, judicial deliberation time, scheduling conflicts, and the availability of counsel and court resources.

The applicant had not previously raised concerns about delay and demonstrated minimal prejudice from bail conditions or scheduling impacts.

The court concluded that the delay did not violate the applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The appellant appealed convictions for production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and theft under.

He argued the circumstantial evidence did not support the inference that he had the required knowledge and control of the grow operation.

The court held that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence as a whole, correctly instructed herself on circumstantial evidence, and reasonably concluded that the only reasonable inference was guilt.

The court also rejected the submission that documents seized from the appellant’s home were used improperly.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his application for certiorari to set aside a committal order following a preliminary inquiry.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence of identification and the type of plant.

The Court of Appeal held that the preliminary inquiry judge did not commit a jurisdictional error, as there was some evidence connecting the appellant to the property and the 9,000 marijuana plants, including his admitted ownership and the testimony of a police officer.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the defendant's guilty plea to production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown brought a forfeiture application under section 16 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for the residential property where the grow operation was discovered.

The registered owner, the defendant's mother, sought restoration of the property under section 19(3) of the CDSA, arguing she was innocent of any complicity or collusion.

The court found the evidence of her knowledge and involvement was exceedingly weak and granted her application for restoration, finding she appeared innocent of complicity or collusion in the offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to traffic in GHB.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of a police agent, in applying a previous binding decision, and in treating the nature of GHB as a date-rape drug as an aggravating factor on sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessment, legal analysis, or sentencing.

The Crown appealed a decision of a summary conviction appeal court judge who set aside the respondent's guilty plea and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the lower court's decision to set aside the plea based on the evidence and local circumstances.

The appellant appealed his convictions on four grounds, including the admission of expert evidence on domestic violence, the jury instructions regarding that evidence and the complainant's prior statements, and the trial judge's refusal to grant a mistrial after the jury accidentally received a handwritten note on an exhibit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of the expert evidence, the jury instructions, or the trial judge's discretionary decision to deny a mistrial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving over 80 and his seven-month custodial sentence.

He argued that the breath samples were taken by a technician improperly designated by the Minister of Public Safety and Security, rather than the Solicitor General, constituting improper sub-delegation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the change in the Minister's title did not invalidate the delegation of authority under the Criminal Code.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the seven-month term was fit for a fourth conviction, and there was no joint submission binding the sentencing judge.

The appellant was convicted of defrauding the Ministry of Community and Social Services and sentenced to probation, community service, and a restitution order of $11,435.01.

She appealed the restitution order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the restitution order, finding that the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider the appellant's inability to pay and the negative impact the order would have on her prospects for rehabilitation, specifically her ability to obtain a pardon and gainful employment.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for historical sexual and physical abuse against family members.

He argued that a 30-month delay violated his s. 11(b) Charter rights, that the verdicts were unreasonable, and that the jury was improperly instructed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the delay was not unreasonable given the case's complexity.

The Court quashed one assault conviction as unreasonable but upheld the remaining convictions and the global 12-month sentence.

The appellant appealed the two-year driving prohibition imposed as part of his sentence for dangerous driving.

The appellant had no prior criminal or driving record and operated a self-employed business that required driving.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence on consent showing the prohibition would force the sale of his business.

Finding the two-year prohibition excessive and a particular hardship, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the driving prohibition to one year.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing the trial judge failed to exercise sufficient caution when assessing the evidence of an unsavoury co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly cautioned himself and reasonably relied on numerous pieces of confirmatory evidence, including DNA and witness testimony, to find the co-accused credible.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for assault causing bodily harm.

The trial judge had imposed a two-year conditional sentence concurrent to a jail sentence.

The Court of Appeal found multiple errors of law, including imposing a conditional sentence concurrent to a jail sentence, exceeding the maximum length for a conditional sentence, and effectively imposing a penitentiary sentence when accounting for pre-trial custody.

The Court also found a conditional sentence manifestly inappropriate given the respondent's record and the unprovoked nature of the attack.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to an additional six months' imprisonment.