Kamran Sajid

The appellant, Richard Pereira, was convicted of second degree murder in the death of Kathryn Horne.

At trial, the defence conceded that Pereira killed Horne, but argued he was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.

The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the trial judge erred in applying the NCR test, in analyzing post-offence conduct, and in considering expert evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no error in the trial judge’s approach to the NCR defence, the use of post-offence conduct, or the treatment of expert evidence.

The decision concerns a mortgage fraud prosecution.

The accused, Ananthie Alex, was charged with conspiracy to utter forged documents and with knowingly making a false statement in writing to obtain credit.

The court found that Alex conspired with Hans Lauro to obtain a mortgage in the name of Lauro’s mother using falsified income information, but acquitted her on the count of knowingly making a false statement in writing, citing insufficient evidence that a false document was actually submitted to the lender.

The judgment provides a detailed review of the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule and the Carter test for admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases.

The appellant, convicted of drug trafficking and firearm offences, appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's summary dismissal of a motion to re-open a Garofoli application, arguing the wrong test was applied and the affiant officer's credibility was in question.

The sentence appeal argued the judge "jumped" the Crown's position without notice and misapprehended his criminal record, leading to an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding that while the trial judge applied the wrong test for summary dismissal, the motion was substantively heard on its merits.

The court also found that the sentencing errors did not impact the sentence, which was fit given the gravity of the offences, the appellant's high-level role in a commercial drug operation, and his extensive criminal record.

The accused, Grace Vieira, was charged with impaired driving and over 80 mg% blood alcohol after a rear-end collision.

She challenged the lawfulness of breath demands and her arrest, alleging breaches of her Charter rights under ss. 8 and 9.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for both the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand and the subsequent arrest and breathalyzer demand, largely due to inconsistencies between the officer's testimony and body-worn camera footage, and the officer acting on a hunch rather than objective facts.

The court also found that the accused's statement identifying herself as the driver was compelled.

Applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the serious nature of the Charter breaches and their significant impact on the accused's liberty outweighed society's interest in the admission of the reliable breath sample evidence.

Consequently, the breath samples were excluded, leading to an acquittal on both charges.

The appellant, D.A., appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and erroneously treated the complainant as a child witness.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made three material factual errors regarding the appellant's credibility, which formed a substantial basis for rejecting his evidence.

These misapprehensions were central to the verdict.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The court did not need to address the "child witness" ground of appeal.

The accused, David Carrie, was charged with unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The complainant, Gerald Chretien, sustained severe neck injuries resulting in paraplegia after falling from a second-story window, alleging the accused's actions led to his fall.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the complainant's testimony, which the defence challenged on credibility and reliability due to inconsistencies, his extensive criminal record (including for dishonesty), and lack of corroborating physical evidence.

The court found significant concerns regarding the complainant's credibility and reliability, including contradictions in his account, lack of physical evidence of assault, and implausibility of certain aspects of his testimony.

The court also addressed the admissibility and reliability of hearsay statements within medical reports.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and all charges were dismissed.

The appellant, A.S., appealed a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence imposed for multiple sexual and child pornography offences involving her minor children.

The appeal raised two arguments: that the sentencing judge failed to consider the appellant’s future treatability at the designation stage (a "Boutilier error") and erred by not considering a less restrictive sentencing option.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had properly applied the principles from R. v. Boutilier, deeply engaged with the psychiatric evidence regarding treatability and intractability, and correctly concluded that a lesser sentence would not adequately protect the public given the appellant's lifelong risk and the unlikelihood of rehabilitation within a determinate period.