Kiran Gill

The court considered an application by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of France for the extradition of Prasanna Nallalingam to stand trial in France for murder and attempted murder.

The court found that a properly instructed jury could conclude that Nallalingam possessed the requisite mens rea for manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm, based on circumstantial evidence of his planning, provision of weapons, and command of the attack.

The committal order was granted under the Extradition Act.

The decision concerns a bail application by Gurpreet Singh, who is sought for extradition to the United States on charges related to large-scale cocaine trafficking.

Singh proposed a strict house arrest bail plan with GPS monitoring and multiple sureties.

The court found the plan had strengths but ultimately denied bail due to a high risk of flight, citing Singh’s international connections, travel history, and lack of credible financial disclosure.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Kyle Jones, sought a stay of extradition proceedings based on abuse of process, arguing for perpetual piecemeal prosecution, and alternatively, requested disclosure to build a record for the Minister of Justice.

The court dismissed both applications, finding no air of reality to the abuse of process claim and that the disclosure request was not relevant to the committal hearing and would unduly prolong the expeditious extradition process.

The court emphasized that concerns about prosecutorial discretion and the appropriate forum for prosecution are primarily matters for the Minister of Justice at the surrender stage.

The applicant, Kyle Jones, sought disclosure of a hard drive and communications between Canadian and American authorities to support an abuse of process motion to stay extradition proceedings.

He alleged intentional delay by authorities to maximize incarceration and potential perpetual piecemeal prosecution.

The court dismissed the disclosure application, finding that the allegations were not capable of supporting a stay of proceedings and lacked an air of reality, being based on speculation rather than concrete proof.

The court emphasized the distinct roles of the judiciary and executive in extradition and that issues of delay and forum are primarily for the Minister of Justice.

Chukwuemeka Madumelu was sentenced for multiple counts of importing heroin into Canada and one count of possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking (Toronto charges), and an additional count of importing heroin while on bail (Brampton charge).

The court found the accused was more than a mere courier, actively involved in logistical arrangements for large-scale heroin importation.

Aggravating factors included the quantity and purity of heroin, the sophistication of the scheme, and re-offending while on bail.

Mitigating factors included community support, a dated criminal record, and an early guilty plea for the Brampton charge.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 19 years, while the defence sought 12 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, applying the totality principle to ensure proportionality, and granted 465 days of credit for pre-trial detention and stringent house arrest bail conditions.

A 10-year weapons prohibition order was also issued, but a DNA order was declined.

This case involves a dispute between two brothers, Ronald (plaintiff) and Richard (defendant), over beneficial ownership of a residential property.

Ronald asserted beneficial ownership through a resulting trust, while Richard, the registered owner, disputed its existence and counterclaimed for damages and reimbursement.

The court granted Ronald's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Richard held legal title in trust for Ronald's benefit.

Richard was found to have breached his fiduciary duties by extracting equity and improperly treating the property as an investment for tax purposes, but his conduct did not warrant punitive damages.

The court ordered Richard to transfer title to Ronald upon Ronald securing mortgage release and reimbursing Richard for properly incurred expenses, with an offset for equity removed by Richard.

If Ronald fails to secure financing, the property is to be sold.

The accused, Moses Atule, brought applications alleging breaches of his Charter rights under s. 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest) and s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure related to a strip search).

The Crown brought an application to admit a video interview of the accused.

The court dismissed Atule's applications, finding no Charter breaches, and granted the Crown's application to admit the video interview.

The court found that Atule had sufficient information to understand his jeopardy despite not being told the specific drug, and that the strip search, while imperfect in adhering to all Golden guidelines, maintained his dignity.

The video interview was found to be voluntary.

The appellant appealed her convictions on four offences relating to marijuana grow-operations and one count of breach of recognizance, as well as seeking leave to appeal her sentence.

She argued that her guilty pleas were invalid because she was uninformed of immigration consequences, that the facts did not support her pleas, that her counsel was in a conflict of interest, and that she was deprived of effective assistance of counsel.

She also challenged the sentence as unfit due to failure to consider immigration consequences and claimed the forfeiture orders were grossly disproportionate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and denied leave to appeal sentence, finding the guilty pleas were informed, no conflict of interest existed, the appellant received effective assistance of counsel, and the forfeiture orders were part of the accepted plea offer.

The accused, charged with nine drug offences, applied for a Rowbotham order after being denied legal aid funding.

The Crown conceded that the accused's right to a fair trial would be compromised without counsel but contested his indigency and whether he had exhausted all appeals.

The court found that the accused had exhausted his appeals and met the test for indigency, despite his initial failure to provide complete financial disclosure to Legal Aid Ontario.

The application was allowed, and the charges were ordered stayed unless the Crown agreed to provide funding at Legal Aid tariff rates.

Three accused were tried for drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offences following a police investigation that resulted in three distinct seizures of cocaine and marijuana.

The court found the first accused not guilty, accepting his testimony that he was a 'blind courier' without knowledge of the drugs in the box he delivered.

The court found the second accused guilty of possessing cocaine found in a 'stash house', rejecting his cousin's exculpatory testimony and relying on circumstantial evidence of his control over the premises.

The court found the third accused guilty of possessing drugs found in his apartment, rejecting his testimony that the drugs belonged to a houseguest.

The applicants, Everald Brissett and Courtney Benjamin, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in their criminal trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The total delay was 36 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found five months of "defence delay" and four months of "exceptional circumstances" delay, reducing the relevant delay to 27 months, below the ceiling.

Additionally, the "transitional exceptional circumstance" from Jordan applied, as the parties reasonably relied on the pre-Jordan law.

The application was dismissed.

Following a successful application concerning governance of a religious society, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of $280,000 against numerous respondents.

They argued that the respondents engaged in reprehensible conduct by refusing to comply with the society’s constitution, attempting to undermine election results, and advancing questionable evidence during litigation.

The court held that elevated costs require either a Rule 49 offer or reprehensible conduct in the litigation itself, and that most of the criticized behaviour occurred outside the conduct of the litigation.

Applying the reasonableness principles under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and r.57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined that partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

Costs of $160,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes were awarded.