J. Hanna

The Crown prosecuted a multi-count fraud trial arising from an alleged scheme involving fictitious businesses, false financial statements, staged site visits, and front persons used to obtain business loans and lines of credit from institutional lenders.

The court conducted an extensive similar act analysis under Handy and Arp, admitting cross-count evidence for most counts because of the striking similarities in the scheme and the distinctive recurring role of the bookkeeper/accountant liaison, but excluding certain weaker counts.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on the majority of fraud, attempt, money laundering, and possession-of-proceeds counts, relying on a combination of banker testimony, documentary evidence, phone records, geolocation evidence, handwriting and fingerprint evidence, and similar act reasoning.

The accused was acquitted on several counts where identity or participation was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including the criminal organization counts because the Crown failed to prove sufficient structure and cohesiveness.

The co-accused brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on charges of possession of marijuana and heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to establish constructive or joint possession, as the co-accused was not present during the search of the residence where the drugs and currency were found.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the drug charges, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of knowledge and control based on the open visibility of the drugs and the presence of her personal belongings.

However, the court granted the motion regarding the proceeds of crime charge, as the currency was hidden and there was insufficient evidence to infer her knowledge and control.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and related offences, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence.

He argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant contained inaccurate information, material omissions, and relied on an untested confidential informant, thereby violating his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court reviewed the ITO, including amplification evidence from cross-examinations, and concluded there were no intentional misstatements meant to mislead the authorizing Justice.

The court found that the cumulative evidence, including police surveillance and informant tips, provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit several statements made by the accused to first responders and police following the death of her severely disabled daughter.

The defence conceded there were no threats or inducements but argued the accused lacked an operating mind and that the police failed to keep an accurate record of the utterances.

The court found that the accused's responses were appropriate and demonstrated she had the minimum cognitive ability to understand what she was saying and to whom.

The court also held that the lack of complete recordings went to the weight of the statements, not their admissibility, and ruled all statements admissible.

The accused is charged with the first-degree murder of her severely disabled daughter.

The Crown brought an application to use a couch and a mannequin as demonstrative evidence during the testimony of a firefighter who first discovered the victim.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the firefighter could clearly describe the victim's position without the props, meaning the demonstrative evidence had minimal probative value.

Furthermore, the court held that using the props carried a real risk of prejudicial effect by potentially overemphasizing the victim's initial position or artificially inflating the witness's credibility.

The accused was charged with the first degree murder of her severely disabled daughter.

The defence brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal on the charge of first degree murder, conceding there was evidence for second degree murder but arguing there was no evidence of planning and deliberation.

The court reviewed the evidence, including the accused's fabricated story of a home invasion, the staging of the crime scene, and the mode of killing by asphyxiation.

The court held that the complexity of the fabricated story and the staging of the scene provided sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer that the killing was planned and deliberate.

The application for a directed verdict was dismissed.