J. Navarrete

The accused were charged with multiple offences under the Canada Small Business Financing Act arising from three government‑guaranteed small business loans obtained between 2005 and 2006.

The Crown alleged that false equipment invoices were submitted to banks to obtain the loans and that the proceeds were diverted through companies controlled by the accused rather than used for legitimate equipment purchases.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the invoices were fabricated and that the accused jointly participated in a scheme to obtain loans through false representations.

However, the court held that the evidence did not establish laundering of proceeds of crime because the Crown failed to prove an intent to conceal or convert the funds rather than merely distribute them.

One accused was convicted on counts relating to the latter two loans and acquitted on the first loan due to identification issues, while the other accused was convicted of participating in the fraudulent loan applications but acquitted of laundering counts.

The defendants, Mohammad Mehdi Toozhy and Sameen Siddiqi, applied for directed verdicts of acquittal on charges relating to three bank loans obtained under the federal small business financing program.

The Crown alleged the defendants used false invoices to obtain loans for equipment that was never purchased, and instead diverted the funds to themselves and others.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict and found that there was some evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict each defendant on each charge.

The applications for directed verdicts were dismissed.

The accused was charged with failing to stop after an accident, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm following a series of collisions while driving with low blood sugar due to diabetes.

The accused admitted the actus reus but argued he lacked the necessary mens rea because he became disoriented due to hypoglycemia.

The court found the accused was aware that his blood sugar level had become low and nevertheless made a conscious decision to continue driving despite knowing the risks.

Expert evidence established that symptoms of disorientation would arise minutes after awareness of low blood sugar, leaving sufficient time to pull over.

The court held the accused’s conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent driver and found him guilty of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, but acquitted him of failing to stop.