John A. Neander

The appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm and threatening the complainant.

She appealed on the ground that the trial judge erred in failing to allow the defence to advance a theory that could have raised a reasonable doubt as to her guilt.

The trial judge excluded evidence that two unidentified men had taken a backpack from the appellant's home, which could have supported the defence theory that the complainant, not the appellant, possessed the firearm.

The Court of Appeal found that there was sufficient evidence independent of the backpack's contents to give the defence an air of reality and that the jury should have been permitted to consider this alternative theory.

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

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 years' imprisonment (less 18 months' credit for pre-trial custody) for making, possessing and distributing child pornography, sexual assault with a weapon, and sexual interference.

While babysitting his three nieces (six-month-old twins and a four-year-old), the appellant sexually abused them, filmed the abuse, and distributed the images on an Internet site devoted to made-to-order sadistic child pornography.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit despite being at the high end of the sentencing range.

The court emphasized the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in such cases and the unique and egregious circumstances of the offences.

Four appellants appealed their convictions for fraud over $5,000 and conspiracy to commit fraud, as well as a count of knowingly contributing to an activity of a criminal organization.

The convictions arose from a large-scale telemarketing advance fee scheme operating from multiple "boiler rooms" in the Toronto area, where telemarketers defrauded American residents by falsely promising loans from fictitious lenders and demanding advance payments.

The Crown's case relied on fingerprint evidence, surveillance evidence, and the appellants' presence at the locations.

The appellants challenged various aspects of the trial, including jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and the reasonableness of the verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's conduct or instructions, and concluding that the verdicts were reasonable on the evidence.

The appellant appealed her conviction on multiple counts including fraud over $5,000, personating a police officer, transferring proceeds of crime, and criminal organization offences.

She also appealed her sentence of 32 months' imprisonment plus a fine of $225,400 or three years' imprisonment in lieu.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's admission of expert evidence regarding proceeds of crime and money laundering, no error in the jury charge on circumstantial evidence, and no error in principle in the sentencing.

The trial judge properly extrapolated the amount of fraud from a four-day monitoring period.

The appellant was convicted of several offences involving the possession of a firearm and a dangerous weapon following a trial by judge and jury.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the validity of search warrants obtained under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code, which were based on information from a confidential informant, police database checks, and surveillance.

The Crown conceded that the redacted information affidavit could not support the warrants and sought review of the unredacted affidavit under step six of the Garofoli procedure.

The application judge dismissed the section 8 Charter application and admitted the evidence.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: first, that he was not permitted to challenge the sub-facial validity of the redacted portions of the information to obtain; and second, that amicus curiae should have been appointed during the ex parte process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was permitted to make a sub-facial challenge and that the judicial summary provided a meaningful basis to challenge the reliability of the confidential informant's information.

The court also held that the appointment of amicus curiae is discretionary and exceptional, not a constitutional necessity.

The appellants were convicted of drug and firearm offences following a search executed pursuant to a telewarrant.

The trial judge dismissed their Charter section 8 application challenging the validity of the warrant.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of the affiant regarding the corroborating evidence from the property manager.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed errors in principle by refusing cross-examination and by relying on his own assessment of the confidential informant's reliability to deny the motion.

The court held that when the defence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that cross-examination will generate evidence tending to discredit the grounds for the warrant's issuance, cross-examination must be permitted.

The convictions were quashed and new trials ordered.

The applicant, Zekrollah Walizadah, sought an order under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to reduce his period of parole ineligibility for first-degree murder.

The pre-screening judge applied the "substantial likelihood" threshold, considering the applicant's character, conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the offence, victim information, and remorse.

Despite positive conduct in custody, the applicant's continued failure to fully accept responsibility for the planned and deliberate nature of the murder and the extreme violence inflicted was a significant negative factor.

The application was dismissed, as the court was not satisfied there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would unanimously agree to reduce the parole ineligibility period.