Conspiracy

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the existence of a partnership relationship between the individual plaintiff and the defendants, failed to plead the material facts necessary to establish breach of contract claims with the required clarity and precision, and failed to plead the essential elements of various tort claims including tortious interference with economic interests, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.

The court granted the motion to strike and struck out the amended statement of claim, but granted leave to amend within 45 days.

Two appellants were convicted of first degree murder in the death of Jagtar Gill, who was beaten with a metal bar, stabbed multiple times, and had her throat slashed.

The Crown's theory was that Bhupinderpal Gill (the victim's husband) and Gurpreet Ronald (with whom Gill was having an affair) conspired to commit the murder, with Ronald as the perpetrator.

The trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the included offence of second degree murder for Ronald, leaving only verdicts of guilty of first degree murder or not guilty.

The appellants appealed on the basis that this instruction was erroneous and prejudicial to both their defences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to leave second degree murder as a possible verdict for Ronald, and that this error tainted the verdict against Gill as well, as it undermined his defence that Ronald acted alone without planning and deliberation.

The appellant was convicted of drug offences arising from his participation in a conspiracy to import cocaine from Costa Rica to Toronto.

The conspiracy was thwarted and drugs were seized by Panamanian authorities.

The trial judge admitted laboratory evidence from Panamanian authorities obtained pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request, which established that the seized substance was cocaine.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge misinterpreted section 36(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and that the provision was unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that section 36(1) properly permits the admission of foreign records containing hearsay and opinion evidence without requiring proof of necessity or threshold reliability, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the constitutional challenge raised for the first time on appeal.

Two appellants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to traffic heroin and cocaine, and their sentences.

The appellants argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, rendering the verdicts unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld all convictions and sentences, finding that the trial judge properly applied the three-stage test from R. v. Carter for the co-conspirators exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found sufficient evidence that both appellants were members of the conspiracies, with McGean playing an instrumental role and Lucas acting as an enforcer.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the quantum of drugs and the scope of the conspiracy.

Victim surcharges were set aside for both appellants.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend.

The appellant had been charged with careless driving following a motor vehicle collision, but the charge was withdrawn.

He subsequently sued for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy.

The motion judge struck the claim as frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had adequately pleaded the elements of negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy, albeit with significant scandalous and irrelevant material.

The court varied the order, striking only the scandalous portions without leave to amend while permitting the remainder to proceed with leave to amend.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for importing heroin and conspiracy to import heroin.

At the hearing, the appellant abandoned the conviction appeal.

The sentence appeal concerned a 15-year custodial sentence (less credit for 200 days presentence custody) imposed for conspiracy to import heroin and a concurrent 12-year sentence for the substantive importation count.

The sentencing judge found the appellant was part of a broad ongoing conspiracy to import heroin on multiple occasions between October 2010 and March 2011, involving the importation of 2.5 kilograms of heroin valued between $200,000 and $750,600.

The appellant played a significant role well beyond that of a courier, recruiting and organizing multiple couriers to travel to African countries to facilitate importations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in law or principle and concluding the sentence was fit.

Crown's appeal of the acquittal of the respondent on charges of conspiracy to import a narcotic and importing a controlled substance (cocaine).

The respondent was jointly tried with a co-accused who was convicted of the conspiracy count.

The Crown raised two issues on appeal: whether the trial judge wrongly excluded evidence tying the respondent to the conspiracy, and whether the trial judge erred by imposing a reasonable doubt standard at step two of the Carter test for conspiracy membership.

The appellate court dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The appellant appealed his conviction on one count of conspiracy to possess heroin for the purposes of trafficking and his sentence of 12 years imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal addressed three grounds of appeal: an erroneous instruction on the conspiracy count, an erroneous Vetrovec instruction regarding a witness who testified under an immunity agreement, and inadequate guidance on assessing the witness's inconsistent statements.

The court found that while the trial judge misspoke on one aspect of the conspiracy instruction, the error did not warrant a new trial as the real issue—whether the appellant was a member of the conspiracy—was clearly explained to the jury.

The Vetrovec instruction and guidance on inconsistent statements were found to be satisfactory.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the trial judge imposed a sentence well within the appropriate range, considering the appellant's personal and family circumstances.

Both appeals were dismissed.

Michael Oduh, charged with serious drug trafficking offences, applied for a stay of proceedings pending state-funded counsel (a Rowbotham application) after being denied Legal Aid Ontario coverage.

The court found that Oduh lacked the financial means to retain private counsel for a complex, lengthy trial and that counsel was essential for him to receive a fair trial, given the seriousness of the charges, the potential for a lengthy jail term, and his lack of familiarity with the criminal justice system.

The application was allowed, and proceedings were stayed until state-funded counsel was provided.

The plaintiff, an insurance broker, was summarily dismissed by his employer.

He sued for wrongful dismissal, special damages, and compensation for vested business.

He also sued the principal broker for conspiracy, intimidation, and slander.

The employer counterclaimed for breach of contract and fiduciary duty due to the plaintiff soliciting clients.

The court found the dismissal was without just cause, awarded damages in lieu of notice and for vested business (reduced by the plaintiff's breach of non-competition and fiduciary duty).

The claims for special damages, conspiracy, intimidation, and slander against the principal broker were dismissed.

The defendant, Rajeev Henry Balendra, brought a motion for a directed verdict on four counts of an indictment: fraudulent possession of credit card data, conspiracy to commit fraud, possession of identity information with intent to commit an indictable offence, and possession of forged credit cards.

The Crown presented circumstantial evidence, including a USB drive with over 2,000 credit card numbers found on the accused, counterfeit driver's licenses, and financial institution affidavits detailing losses.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, determining whether sufficient evidence existed for a jury, properly instructed, to convict.

The court found ample evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer the accused's knowledge and intent, satisfying the elements of all remaining counts.

The motion for a directed verdict was dismissed.

The defendants, having successfully dismissed the plaintiff's $5 million conspiracy claim on summary judgment, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued against costs, citing no reprehensible conduct and challenging the defendants' bill of costs.

The court awarded the defendants $250,000 in substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty, illegality, and conspiracy to be reprehensible and deserving of sanction, particularly given the potential impact on the defendants' reputation and the complexity and duration of the litigation.

The accused Jankovic and Formusa applied for directed verdicts of acquittal following a trial on charges of importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, involving a shipment of tire changing machines from Panama containing approximately 50 kg of cocaine.

Formusa was observed at the warehouse receiving the shipment and was arrested while unloading it.

Jankovic arrived in Canada shortly before the delivery and had communications with Formusa and Avanes.

The court allowed Jankovic's application for directed verdict, finding insufficient evidence to establish his participation in the conspiracy or knowledge of the controlled substance.

The court dismissed Formusa's application, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a conviction on all counts.

The defendants brought a motion to strike various portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged misleading advertisement, misleading description under the Trade-marks Act, tort of unlawful means, copyright infringements, and conspiracy.

The court considered whether the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action under Rule 21.01(1)(b) and whether they were scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious under Rule 25.11.

The court struck certain paragraphs related to direct statutory breaches and s. 36(1) of the Competition Act and s. 7(d) of the Trade-marks Act (with leave to amend for the latter two), but preserved allegations concerning false and misleading representations, the tort of unlawful means, and conspiracy, finding them relevant and sufficiently pleaded.

The defendant, Emanuele Tesfai, was found guilty of two counts of conspiring to traffic marijuana and cocaine.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The Crown sought 18 months incarceration, while the defence advocated for a conditional sentence.

The court considered the defendant's background, including a dated criminal record, significant personal crises (divorce and brother's suicide), and subsequent rehabilitation efforts.

Applying sentencing principles, the court determined that a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community, followed by two years probation, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a DNA order, would adequately address denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation without endangering community safety.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision arising from Project Bermuda, a Durham Regional Police investigation into cocaine trafficking.

Four accused were charged with various drug trafficking, firearm, and proceeds of crime offences.

The Crown proceeded on numerous counts with some concessions by defence counsel.

The judge applied the Shephard test to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to commit each accused to trial.

The decision addresses key legal principles regarding possession, conspiracy, voice identification, and the scope of preliminary inquiries.

Multiple counts were dismissed for insufficient evidence, while others proceeded to trial.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to commit trafficking in cocaine.

An undercover police officer testified that he met the accused at a bar, requested cocaine, and the accused made a phone call and arranged for a co-conspirator to deliver the drug.

The defence argued insufficient evidence of an agreement.

The court found that while there was no direct evidence of an agreement, the circumstantial evidence—including the accused's statement that "nothing comes through this place without me knowing," his phone call to arrange the delivery, and his approach to the vehicle before the transaction—established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused and the co-conspirator had agreed to traffic in cocaine.

The accused was convicted.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with 57 counts involving break and enter, theft, and assault.

Several counts were stayed or withdrawn by the Crown.

The justice found sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on 25 counts, including break and enter, theft, assault causing bodily harm, and conspiracy.

The justice declined to commit on 23 counts due to insufficient evidence.

Additional counts were added for break and enter to Fincham Plaza mall, conspiracy to commit break and enter and theft, and counselling to commit theft in relation to stolen vehicles.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on grounds of unreasonable trial delay.

The defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit fraud over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and obstructing a peace officer in connection with an alleged staged motor vehicle accident and fraudulent insurance claim.

The charges arose from Project Whiplash, a large-scale investigation involving 38 separately charged individuals.

The court conducted an attribution analysis of the delay periods and found that approximately 8 months of the 16-month total delay constituted neutral intake procedures inherent to the case, while 7 months represented systemic institutional delay.

The court determined that the defendant suffered only modest actual and inferred prejudice and that society's interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the defendant's interest in prompt adjudication.

The application was dismissed.

This is a decision on committal to trial following a lengthy preliminary inquiry into Project Corral, an investigation by the Integrated Guns and Gangs Task Force into alleged criminal organizations in northwest Toronto.

The Crown sought committal on 71 charges arising from evidence heard at the preliminary inquiry, including charges of trafficking in cocaine, marijuana, firearms and ammunition, conspiracy, counselling, obstruction of justice, and criminal organization offences.

The court analyzed voice identification evidence from intercepted communications, the meaning of coded language used by the accused, and the elements of possession, trafficking, conspiracy, and criminal organization offences.

The court ordered most accused to stand trial on the majority of charges, with some discharges on specific counts.