Kidnapping

The appellants, David Hui and Musab Saboon, appealed their convictions for kidnapping and first-degree murder of Lee Chiodo, as well as Hui's sentence for kidnapping.

Both were convicted after a trial by judge alone and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's credibility and reliability analysis of Marshall Hardy-Fox, a Vetrovec witness whose evidence was key to the convictions.

The appellants also argued the trial judge failed to apply the proper legal test for assessing credibility and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of Hardy-Fox's evidence, proper application of the credibility test, and adequate reasons.

The court also dismissed Hui's sentence appeal based on the parity principle.

The defendant was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, kidnapping, forcible confinement, pointing a firearm, and firearm possession offences following a police stop on April 6, 2024.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the alleged victim, whose account was riddled with contradictions and demonstrated significant credibility issues.

The defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the firearm and denied assaulting or confining the alleged victim.

The court found the Crown failed to prove any charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The appellant, Boris Rajkovic, appealed a global sentence of 13 years for six offences, including kidnapping, bank robbery, and discharging a firearm at police.

He challenged the fitness of the sentence, the imposition of a consecutive sentence for discharging a firearm, and the sufficiency of credit for pre-trial custody conditions, including alleged poor medical care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the global sentence fit given the gravity and number of offences, upholding the consecutive sentence due to the distinct nature of the firearm discharge, and affirming the sentencing judge's decision on pre-trial credit as the medical records did not support the appellant's claims.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder following a seven-week jury trial.

This was his second trial on the charge; his prior conviction had been overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2013.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of Mark Yegin, a witness of questionable credibility who testified that he witnessed the appellant and Shant Esrabian shoot the victim, Hussein El-Hajj Hassan, in a secluded rural area west of Ottawa in August 2004.

The Crown's theory was that the appellant orchestrated the murder in retaliation for the victim's decision to purchase drugs directly from a supplier, thereby cutting the appellant out of the sales chain.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding multiple legal errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping his friend after a judge and jury trial.

He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

On appeal, he challenged the conviction on four grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in her instructions on the actus reus of aiding and abetting by not emphasizing the need for actual assistance when reviewing the evidence; (2) the trial judge erred in failing to leave with the jury the included offence of "attempt to aid" a kidnapping; (3) the trial judge erred in not linking her W.(D.) instruction to the defence of duress; and (4) the trial judge erred in failing to correct Crown counsel's improper reference to hearsay evidence in closing arguments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

Andrew Campbell was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, pointing a handgun, and assault causing bodily harm.

The court, in its sentencing decision, considered the severe nature of the offences, which involved violence, torture, and the use of a firearm, alongside the offender's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included a clean criminal record and compliance with bail conditions.

The judge imposed a global sentence of 7 years for kidnapping, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, after granting credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail terms.

Ancillary orders for a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition were also issued.

A young person, T.G., was found guilty of kidnapping with a firearm, firearm possession, possession of heroin (laced with fentanyl) for trafficking, possession of cocaine for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought an adult sentence, arguing that a youth sentence would be insufficient for accountability.

The defence argued for the maximum youth sentence.

The court found that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted due to T.G.'s leadership role in the serious and prolonged kidnapping, his active participation in violence, and his established criminal lifestyle.

The court determined that a youth sentence would not adequately hold T.G. accountable.

Consequently, T.G. was sentenced as an adult to a global sentence of 9 years, with credit for time served, resulting in 4 years and 5 months remaining to be served in a federal penitentiary.

The defendant, Steven Manuel Espinola, was charged with break and enter, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and assault against his former fiancée.

The court acquitted him of break and enter, finding no intent to kidnap upon entry.

However, the court found him guilty of kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and assault, accepting the complainant's testimony over the defendant's, which was deemed unreliable and illogical.

The kidnapping occurred when he drove her against her will, the assault involved a shove during a struggle for her phone, and the unlawful confinement took place at his home where he prevented her from leaving.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter, kidnapping, and offering an indignity to a body arising from the death of the victim.

The appellant ordered the kidnapping of the victim, believing he had stolen from him.

The victim was beaten, kidnapped, bound, and confined at the appellant's automotive shop, where he died.

The appellant's body was subsequently burned.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the actus reus and mens rea of manslaughter were established, and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to either ground.

The court delivered reasons for sentence for three co-accused, David Kawal, Tyrel Nicholson, and Devonte Rowe, involved in a botched robbery and kidnapping scheme.

Kawal was convicted of attempted murder of a police officer, robbery with a firearm, and kidnapping with a firearm.

Nicholson pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, kidnapping with a firearm, and breach of recognizance.

Rowe was convicted of robbery and kidnapping simpliciter.

The judge emphasized the gravity of handgun violence and offences against police officers, applying principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

Kawal received a life sentence with normal parole eligibility.

Nicholson was sentenced to 10 years (63 months actual after pre-trial credit).

Rowe received a 4-year sentence (time served) based on a joint submission.

The court declined to delay parole for Kawal, citing the parole board's superior position to assess rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, abduction, and breach of probation, all alleged to have occurred in Milton on August 25, 2017.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness identification by the victim's mother (KT) of the accused as the person who attempted to abduct her child.

Although the court found KT to be credible and sincere in her belief, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The identification suffered from significant frailties, including limited observation time, cross-racial identification, and inconsistencies between KT's description and the accused's appearance.

The court acquitted the accused on all charges.

This decision contains pre-charge rulings in a criminal trial involving charges of robbery, kidnapping, and attempted murder against David Kawal and co-accused.

The court addressed three issues: the admissibility of consciousness of guilt evidence, a directed verdict application for one of the attempted murder charges against Kawal, and an alternative suspect application.

The court ruled that the consciousness of guilt evidence (cell phone sim card change) was inadmissible due to its low probative value and high prejudicial effect.

It granted a directed verdict of acquittal for Kawal on the attempted murder of Mohammed Ibrahim, finding that the act was not a probable consequence of the common criminal purpose.

Finally, the court allowed the defence to pursue an alternative suspect (Q.H.) for the shooting of Officer Alwyn, finding sufficient admissible evidence to lend an "air of reality" to this defence.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm, kidnapping, and two counts of breach of probation, as well as seeking leave to appeal sentence.

The convictions arose from an incident where the appellant and three others arrived at the complainant's apartment, demanded return of allegedly stolen property, threatened violence, and subsequently assaulted and confined the complainant, causing severe injuries.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding that although the trial judge did not expressly address the appellant's history of childhood sexual abuse as a mitigating factor, this omission did not affect the fitness of the sentence imposed.

The accused applied under section 523(2)(b) of the Criminal Code to vacate a detention order following the conclusion of a preliminary hearing on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and kidnapping arising from a violent group beating.

The Crown's case relied on identification evidence including a post-arrest statement, officer identification from surveillance video, and dock identification.

The court found that the preliminary hearing evidence revealed significant admissibility challenges to the Crown's key identification evidence, particularly regarding the voluntariness of the statement and the reliability of the officer's identification.

Although the objective gravity of the offence remained extreme, the apparent strength of the Crown's case was substantially diminished.

The court granted the application and ordered the accused's release on strict conditions, finding a material change in circumstances sufficient to reconsider the necessity of detention on the tertiary ground.

The accused in a 29-count indictment for theft, kidnapping, robbery, and possession of property obtained by crime brought directed verdict applications at the close of the Crown's case.

The applications were dismissed, with the court finding that the Crown's circumstantial evidence, particularly cell phone data showing symmetrical movement and association between the accused, was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt for each count.

The court clarified the legal test for directed verdicts in circumstantial cases, rejecting the defence's argument that evidence must be inconsistent with any other explanation.

The offender was found guilty of kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault, robbery, assault, and theft.

He kidnapped a 60-year-old vulnerable victim, forced her to drive to a park, and sexually assaulted her.

The Crown sought 9 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought 7 to 8 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 8 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-trial custody, noting the offender's lengthy criminal record and the profound impact on the victim.

Several counts were conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial for armed home invasion robbery, kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom, and related offences.

The evidence included direct testimony from the complainant, extensive video surveillance from the complainant's home security system, CTV news helicopter footage of the police takedown, and mall security video.

The court found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably find guilt on charges of armed robbery, kidnapping with use of firearms, masked commission of indictable offences, and escape from lawful custody.

All four accused were committed to stand trial in Superior Court before a judge and jury.

The plaintiff, a 25-year-old university student, was kidnapped, forcibly confined, and sexually assaulted by the defendant, a store clerk, after she entered a health food store.

The defendant was noted in default in this civil action after being convicted criminally and designated a dangerous offender.

The court assessed damages, awarding the plaintiff $225,000 in general and aggravated damages, $75,000 in punitive damages, $827,957 for past and future income loss, and $125,000 for future care costs, plus substantial indemnity costs.

The accused pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit forcible confinement.

Over an 18-month period, the accused made multiple entries to an abandoned home where he constructed a prison cell in the basement, complete with reinforced doors, sealed windows, and restraint apparatus.

The accused's plan was to kidnap and confine a specific individual, Gwen Armstrong, and demand ransom from her husband.

The court sentenced the accused to two years less a day, followed by three years probation with strict conditions including counselling and no contact orders.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the paramount sentencing principles.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, robbery, break and enter, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown's case rested primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a 20-year-old student who was abducted at gunpoint from outside his school, robbed of personal items and money, and driven to his home where the assailants attempted to enter.

The defence challenged the credibility of the complainant and the reliability of his identification of the accused, arguing the story was fanciful and improbable.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted his identification of the accused based on prior acquaintance, the name "Bala" (a shortened form of the accused's first name), and the circumstances of observation during the prolonged incident.

The accused was convicted on all charges except forcible confinement, which was stayed as it merged with the kidnapping conviction.