John Kaldas

The Crown sought to admit a statement made by a witness regarding the deceased's ambiguous response ("Oh Nadira") to a question about the accused hitting her, arguing it constituted an adoptive admission by silence.

The court ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The judge reasoned that the extra inferential step required for an adoptive admission, combined with the vagueness of the statement, significantly attenuated its probative value and posed a serious risk of wide-ranging speculation by the jury.

In a second-degree murder trial, the Crown applied to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct to prove the mental element for murder, as the defence conceded the act of killing but disputed intent.

Applying the R. v. Handy framework, the court ruled that evidence from a long-time friend of the deceased (Ms. Dindyal) detailing the troubled mother-son relationship, disrespect, and property damage was admissible.

This evidence provided necessary context for the accused's mental state and the "reservoir of anger" leading to the killing.

However, 911 calls and testimony from other witnesses (Mr. Peters, Ms. Vella, Ms. Allen) were deemed inadmissible due to being too remote in time (accused was an adolescent), lacking sufficient probative value, or being cumulative and overly prejudicial.

The court emphasized balancing the need for historical context against the risk of prejudice, particularly from cumulative evidence.

The applicants, charged with arson and production of controlled substances, sought a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel at their upcoming preliminary hearing after being refused Legal Aid.

The court found that while the applicants met the first criterion of being refused Legal Aid, there was uncertainty regarding their financial means due to support from family and friends.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application on the third criterion, concluding that representation at a preliminary hearing is not essential to a fair trial, and that a Rowbotham order at this stage is only available in exceptional circumstances.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, challenging the admissibility of his confession obtained through a police undercover operation styled as an insurance fraud scheme.

The operation involved undercover officers posing as a private investigator and a terminally ill man seeking to confess to the murder in exchange for insurance proceeds.

The appellant argued the confession was obtained through a "Mr. Big" operation that did not meet the admissibility criteria established in R. v. Hart and that the trial judge's jury charge was inadequate under R. v. Mack.

The Court of Appeal held that although the operation was a modified version of a classic Mr. Big scheme, the Hart test applied.

The confession met the threshold reliability requirements, the probative value outweighed prejudicial effect, and there was no abuse of process.

The jury charge adequately addressed the Hart and Mack criteria.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, Freskela Malual, was charged with common assault, mischief, aggravated assault, and breach of probation arising from an altercation with her live-in partner, Gerald Annis.

The court found Annis's testimony unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies.

The Crown conceded an acquittal on the mischief charge due to shared property ownership.

The court acquitted Malual on the common assault charge due to insufficient evidence regarding the incident outside the bar.

For aggravated assault and breach of probation (possession of a knife), the court found reasonable doubt regarding intent and self-defence, concluding that the injuries could have been accidental or in self-defence against Annis's aggression.

Malual was acquitted on all counts.

A preliminary inquiry into eight charges arising from the shooting of a victim in a Toronto parking lot on July 16, 2014.

Three co-accused were charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, firearm offences, and assault with a weapon.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the victim's testimony and circumstantial evidence including phone records and security camera footage.

Defence counsel conceded the sufficiency of evidence identifying each accused's role at the scene.

The court applied the Sheppard test and found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on all charges.

The accused struck and killed a highly intoxicated pedestrian who was wandering on Highway 401 after being abandoned by a taxi driver.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and 'over 80' causing death.

While the Crown proved the accused was impaired and had a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit, the court found the accused was not the legal cause of the death.

The pedestrian's unpredictable presence on the live lanes of the highway created an unavoidable hazard.

The accused was acquitted of the 'causing death' offences but convicted of the included offences of impaired driving and operating a vehicle while 'over 80'.