S. Malik

The decision concerns a mortgage fraud prosecution.

The accused, Ananthie Alex, was charged with conspiracy to utter forged documents and with knowingly making a false statement in writing to obtain credit.

The court found that Alex conspired with Hans Lauro to obtain a mortgage in the name of Lauro’s mother using falsified income information, but acquitted her on the count of knowingly making a false statement in writing, citing insufficient evidence that a false document was actually submitted to the lender.

The judgment provides a detailed review of the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule and the Carter test for admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases.

The defendants, Basil Dixon and Nathan Brown, were charged with conspiracy to import cocaine following a large-scale police investigation ("Project Southam").

The trial, heard by a judge alone, relied heavily on intercepted communications and surveillance.

The court found that voice identification evidence from a detective constable was unreliable due to limited exposure and lack of formal training.

However, based on circumstantial evidence, including intercepts and surveillance footage, the court identified Dixon as "B" and Brown as "R" in the communications.

Applying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, the court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Dixon conspired to import cocaine from Guyana (Count One) and that both Dixon and Brown conspired to import cocaine using a pilot (Count Three).

The accused, Adam Luangphasi and Alexander Le, were tried on multiple counts including conspiracy to traffic, import, and produce cocaine, as well as participating in a criminal organization and possessing proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on intercepted communications, surveillance, and expert evidence decoding drug jargon.

Applying the Carter framework for co-conspirator hearsay, the court found both accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine from Guyana.

Luangphasi was also found guilty of a separate conspiracy to import cocaine using a private plane.

Both accused were acquitted of the criminal organization charges due to a lack of proven structure and continuity, and acquitted of the carpet importation and production conspiracies.

Luangphasi was acquitted of possessing proceeds of crime.

The offenders were convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime after police found nearly half a kilogram of cocaine and over $5,000 in cash in their vehicle.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought conditional sentences or 8 to 12 months imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for commercial drug trafficking and sentenced both offenders to 3.5 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime after police discovered over 470 grams of cocaine and significant cash in their vehicle.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the location of the drugs, the large amount of cash in plain view, and the accused's behaviour during the police stop.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and concluded that the only reasonable inference was that both accused had knowledge and control of the drugs and money.

Both accused were found guilty on all counts.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine and heroin, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and heroin.

During a police raid, the offender was found hiding in a bathtub, refused to comply with police directions, and was tasered, resulting in facial injuries.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the significant quantity of drugs and a lengthy criminal record, against mitigating factors such as mental health issues and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, charged with possession of controlled substances and assaulting a police officer, brought Charter motions alleging breaches of his s. 7 and s. 8 rights during the execution of a search warrant.

The court found that the police use of force, including a Conducted Energy Weapon, was reasonable given the applicant's resistance and the belief he might be armed, dismissing the s. 7 claim.

While the court found a s. 8 breach occurred when an officer searched the applicant's jacket for identification after a safety pat-down, the evidence of drugs was admitted under s. 24(2) as the officer acted in good faith to assist the applicant.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and one count of breaching a recognizance.

The court determined a fit global sentence was 4.5 years.

After applying Summers credit for time served, Downes credit for strict bail conditions, and a significant Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the remaining sentence was two years less a day.

Finding that the offender had strong rehabilitative prospects and that further incarceration would be unduly harsh and counterproductive, the court ordered the remaining sentence to be served conditionally in the community.

Sentencing for historic sexual offences against children involving multiple victims, including sexual touching committed in positions of familial and trusted adult authority.

The court emphasized the gravity, inherent wrongfulness, and lasting harm of child sexual abuse, relying on recent Supreme Court guidance stressing denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality.

Although the judge expressed serious reservations about the leniency of a community-based sentence for offences of this nature, the court applied the public interest test governing joint submissions and accepted a joint proposal for a conditional sentence because rejection would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A concurrent conditional sentence of two years less one day was imposed, followed by three years' probation, together with DNA, lifetime SOIRA, and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including two counts of robbery, possession of a restricted firearm, and breach of recognizance.

The accused conceded guilt on the firearm possession and breach of recognizance charges.

The court dismissed the accused's application for a directed verdict on one robbery count, finding that the act of driving away while the victim held onto the vehicle constituted violence.

The court found the accused guilty of the second robbery based on eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence, but acquitted the accused of the first robbery due to reasonable doubt regarding his involvement.

Kafi Ali was charged with multiple firearms and drug-related offences.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 9 (arbitrary detention), seeking the exclusion of incriminating evidence under section 24(2).

The court found no Charter breaches, determining that the investigative detention was based on reasonable suspicion and was not racially motivated, and the subsequent arrest and search were lawful.

The defence conceded the elements of most offences if the Charter application failed, but disputed the charge of possession of property obtained by crime.

The court ultimately found Mr. Ali guilty of all charges, including possession of property obtained by crime, concluding that the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, charged with assault and sexual assault, brought an application for the production of third-party records, specifically police occurrence reports and officers' notes relating to previous complaints made by the complainant.

Following an initial ruling, the court reviewed the officers' notes to determine appropriate redactions.

The court ordered the release of the notes to the accused, subject to redactions protecting the identity and privacy of third parties and removing references to a separate youth record.

The accused, George Giaouris, was charged with assaulting Ms. Cordero causing her bodily harm and threatening her with death.

The central issue was self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found a reasonable doubt that the complainant initiated the physical altercation, thus satisfying the first element of self-defence.

However, the court concluded that the force used by the accused, which resulted in severe injuries to the complainant, was excessive and disproportionate to the perceived threat, failing the reasonableness requirement of s. 34(1)(c).

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm but not guilty of threatening, as the threat was conditional and no force was used in uttering it.

Z.A., in custody for 11 months awaiting trial on criminal harassment and probation breach charges, sought a review of his detention under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed release on secondary grounds, citing Z.A.'s history of harassing conduct and related convictions.

The court considered the COVID-19 pandemic and the passage of time but found a substantial likelihood of Z.A. committing further offences, given his persistent pattern of harassment despite warnings and previous convictions.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application to terminate the evidence of a key witness at a preliminary hearing after the witness became medically unable to continue cross-examination due to post-traumatic stress disorder and related psychiatric conditions.

The witness had testified in chief and partially under cross-examination before experiencing chest pains and distress.

The Crown sought to rest its case based on a medical letter from the witness's treating psychiatrist recommending against further testimony.

The defence opposed the application, arguing that the right to cross-examine is fundamental to full answer and defence.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that while the right to cross-examine is not absolute, the medical evidence was compelling, the witness had testified partially, other evidence was available, and the prejudice to the defence at the preliminary hearing stage was limited.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement of the complainant.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the complainant's testimony regarding non-consensual sexual acts and confinement.

The accused moved to stay the charges, alleging that police failed to preserve video recordings from a doorbell security system that would have been exculpatory evidence.

The trial judge found that while evidence was lost due to a combination of police misunderstanding and the complainant's deletion of recordings, this did not constitute unacceptable negligence warranting a stay.

However, the trial judge found that the lost evidence, combined with frailties in the complainant's testimony and the accused's early and convincing denials, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the sexual assault and forcible confinement occurred.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault after an intoxicated female passenger woke up half-naked in his bed.

The complainant had no memory of how she got into the bed or what happened.

A sexual assault kit revealed the accused's DNA on the complainant's left breast.

The Crown's expert testified about DNA transfer but could not rule out secondary transfer from the accused's bedding.

The court found the expert's evidence on DNA transference was outside her area of expertise and could not discount the possibility of secondary transfer without direct contact.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual touching of his step-daughter, who was under 16 years of age.

The offences occurred in the family home.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the defence sought 2 to 3 years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the breach of trust and the vulnerability of the victim, against mitigating factors such as the accused's lack of a criminal record and positive community support.

The accused was sentenced to 4 years for sexual assault and 6 months for sexual touching, to be served concurrently.

The court also imposed a s. 161 order prohibiting contact with the victim, but declined to impose broader prohibitions regarding public places and employment involving minors due to a lack of evidence of risk to other children.

The appellant appealed his sentence for criminal harassment and failure to comply with an undertaking, arguing the sentencing judge erred by relying on unadmitted allegations in the pre-sentence report (PSR) and in assessing a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court found the sentencing judge erred in principle by considering unproven abusive and controlling behaviour from the PSR.

However, despite this error, the court conducted a fresh determination of the sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the appellant's disregard for court orders and the impact on his child, and mitigating factors like his lack of criminal record and rehabilitation efforts.

The court concluded that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest due to the need for general deterrence and denunciation in cases involving repeated breaches of court orders in acrimonious family breakdowns.

The appeal on sentence was dismissed, affirming the original suspended sentence and 12 months' probation.