Tara Boghosian

The appellant was convicted of firearm offences after an Instagram video showed him displaying what appeared to be a loaded handgun.

The physical weapon was never recovered.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge's finding that the object was a real firearm was unreasonable, as the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the possibility it was an imitation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude the firearm was real based on the video evidence, including the appellant's act of removing the magazine to display ammunition in response to a question about whether the gun was real.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that while the trial judge made minor errors in summarizing the collateral immigration consequences, these errors did not impact the fitness of the sentence imposed.

The member, a director of education, faced allegations of professional misconduct for improperly expensing personal accommodation and travel costs to his board-issued credit card.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations and fully repaid the expenses prior to any complaint.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including failing to keep records, signing false or misleading documents, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a written reprimand, a one-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the successful completion of a professional ethics course.

The appellant, Jamil Ahmad Qureshi, appealed his conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and death, arguing the trial judge erred in her legal analysis of the mens rea element.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapplied principles regarding momentary lapses and conflated civil and criminal negligence standards by failing to adequately explain how the appellant's conduct constituted a "marked departure" from the standard of care.

The Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, but declined to order an acquittal, finding the verdict was not otherwise unreasonable.

The applicant, charged with making an explosive substance, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 33 months and 22 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for the Superior Court.

After deducting defence-caused delay, the net delay remained above the ceiling.

However, the court found that the Covid-19 pandemic constituted an exceptional circumstance that justified the delay, as it caused a seven-month suspension of court operations.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.