Kosta Stratos

The accused, Furqan Akhtar and Saifullah Dero, were found guilty by a jury of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm while street racing.

The offences involved racing at high speeds (up to 144 km/h in a 60 km/h zone) on a city street, resulting in a fatal collision that killed one person and seriously injured two others.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the extreme speed, dangerous driving on a busy city street, and the horrific consequences, balanced against mitigating factors including the youth of the first-time offenders and their rehabilitative prospects.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of 30 months imprisonment for each accused, along with a 10-year driving prohibition, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of the vehicles.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm without a licence and possession while prohibited.

He was a passenger in a car that was shot at, and he briefly possessed and threw away the driver's loaded gun when police approached.

The court found his possession was fleeting.

Considering his guilty plea, relative youth, and the unique circumstances, the court imposed a global sentence of 21 months.

After credit for 17 months of pre-trial custody, he was sentenced to one day in jail and two years of probation.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder arising from a home invasion robbery, sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from a criminologist regarding the statistical likelihood of death resulting from firearms-related robberies.

The court applied the Mohan/Abbey framework for expert evidence and the elements of s. 229(c) of the Criminal Code as set out in R. v. Shand.

The court held that the proposed evidence was not logically relevant to the specific dangerous act in this case (pointing a loaded, cocked firearm) and that its potential to confuse the jury outweighed any probative value.

The application to admit the expert evidence was dismissed.

During a murder trial arising from a robbery in which the victim was fatally shot, the accused sought to introduce his exculpatory statement to accomplices that the shooting was accidental.

The court held the statement was not admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule because it was made after a temporal and substantive break from the shooting and in response to questioning.

However, applying the principles from R. v. Edgar, the court concluded the statement could be admissible as circumstantial evidence of the accused’s reaction and demeanour when first confronted with the allegation, provided it was not used for its truth.

The court further held that the accused must testify before the statement can be admitted, so that it may be tested through cross‑examination.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, criminal harassment, and two counts of breach of probation relating to his former intimate partner.

The complainant alleged the accused raped her after his parents stayed overnight at her home, and later harassed her with text messages.

The accused testified the sexual activity was consensual and the text messages were attempts to rekindle the relationship, supported by evidence from his father and a family friend.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant's evidence unreliable and inconsistent, and the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on all charges.