N. Jamaldin

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to file an appeal of his conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued that he was unaware of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and that he was unfit to stand trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was aware of the immigration consequences, the delay was unexplained, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as he had been properly found fit to stand trial and a conditional discharge was disproportionate to the offence.

The accused applied for disclosure of investigative materials held by the Toronto Police Service Professional Standards Unit relating to investigations of two individuals connected to a large-scale drug investigation known as Project Gladiator.

The Crown argued the records constituted third‑party records requiring an O’Connor application, while the defence asserted they formed part of the fruits of the investigation subject to Stinchcombe disclosure.

The court found the investigations of the two individuals were intertwined with the criminal investigation of the accused and were conducted as part of the same joint police investigation.

Because the materials could assist the defence, including supporting alternate suspect theories, they constituted first‑party disclosure.

The court ordered disclosure under the Stinchcombe regime.

The appellant was convicted of credit card fraud-related offences after police found skimming equipment, encoded gift cards, and a USB key during a traffic stop and subsequent searches.

He appealed his convictions, arguing that the searches of his person, vehicle, and USB key violated his s. 8 Charter rights and the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the pat-down search was lawful, and while the vehicle and USB key searches breached s. 8, the evidence was properly admitted under s. 24(2).

The court also affirmed that a conviction for possessing credit card data under s. 342(3) does not require proof that the data could successfully defraud an issuer.

The conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.