Amanda Camara

The accused was tried for three counts of robbery using a firearm and one count of breach of probation arising from a home invasion robbery.

The evidence established that the accused and an accomplice attended the victims’ apartment intending to steal property and assault the occupant, while another participant wielded a sawed‑off shotgun.

The court rejected the accused’s claim that he was unaware of the firearm and accepted evidence from multiple witnesses that the firearm had been displayed and discussed beforehand.

Applying party liability under s. 21 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the accused knowingly participated in a common plan to commit a robbery in which a firearm would be used.

The accused was therefore convicted of three counts of robbery with a firearm and breach of probation.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder for stabbing his wife to death and nearly decapitating her.

The court determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

The court rejected the accused's claims of profound depression and PTSD, finding him manipulative and lacking remorse.

Considering the brutal nature of the domestic homicide, the vulnerability of the victim, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the court set parole ineligibility at 15 years.

In a murder trial, the accused sought a mistrial after the Crown’s opening address allegedly contained argument, rhetorical flourishes, and repetitive descriptions of the deceased’s injuries that were said to be inflammatory and prejudicial.

The court acknowledged that portions of the Crown’s opening exceeded the proper limits of a neutral overview and included some inappropriate commentary.

However, applying established principles governing mistrials, the court held that the improprieties were not so prejudicial that a jury would be incapable of disregarding them.

The court emphasized that mistrials are remedies of last resort and that juries are presumed to follow judicial instructions.

A corrective instruction to the jury was therefore sufficient to cure any potential prejudice.

The accused, charged with second degree murder of his wife, sought to exclude statements made to police on the basis that they were involuntary and obtained in breach of his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The accused argued that the police failed to provide a Dari interpreter promptly, delaying his ability to consult counsel.

The court found the statements voluntary despite a recording failure, as the officers' notes and an interpreter's statement provided a sufficient record.

The court also dismissed the Charter applications, finding the accused understood the reason for his arrest and his right to counsel in Hindi, and that the delay in securing a Dari interpreter was reasonable in the circumstances.

The statements were ruled admissible.

In a murder trial where the accused admitted to cutting his wife's throat, the Crown sought to adduce a graphic autopsy photograph of the wound to assist the jury in determining the accused's intent.

The accused opposed the admission, arguing the photograph was highly prejudicial and had minimal probative value.

The court found that the photograph had considerable probative value in illustrating the force required to inflict the injury, which was central to the issue of intent.

The court concluded that the probative value outweighed any potential prejudicial effect and ruled the photograph admissible.

The accused was convicted after trial of multiple child pornography offences including possession, making child pornography available, and accessing child pornography through a peer‑to‑peer file‑sharing network.

Police investigators directly connected to the accused’s computer through the LimeWire/Gnutella network and downloaded files while the accused’s system was actively downloading and sharing illicit material.

A search of the accused’s residence revealed thousands of images and videos stored on a computer tower, laptop, and disks accumulated over several years.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as the dominant sentencing objectives for internet‑based child pornography offences, particularly where the offender disseminates material to others online.

Considering the scale of the collection, the dissemination of files, and the lack of remorse or evidence of treatment prospects, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence with concurrent terms and ancillary orders.

During a criminal trial for multiple child pornography offences, the Crown sought to qualify a police officer as an expert in Internet-based child pornography investigations and peer‑to‑peer file sharing networks.

The defence objected on the basis that the officer’s role in the investigation created an appearance of bias and partiality.

Applying the expert evidence framework in Mohan and the gatekeeping analysis discussed in Abbey and Van Bree, the court conducted a cost‑benefit assessment of the proposed opinion evidence.

The court held that the witness’s expertise, reliability, and the necessity of the evidence to understand LimeWire peer‑to‑peer technology outweighed any potential prejudice arising from his investigative role.

The officer was therefore permitted to testify as an expert on the operation of peer‑to‑peer file sharing systems.