Matthew Asma

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder based primarily on the testimony of a co-operating witness who was present during the shooting.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made three cumulative errors that rendered the trial unfair: providing an inadequate answer to a jury question about the absence of corroborative evidence, failing to correct improper statements made by the Crown during closing submissions, and improperly excluding a hearsay statement made by the key witness to his lawyer.

The Court ordered new trials for two of the appellants.

For the third appellant, the Court found the verdict unreasonable due to deeply flawed stranger identification evidence and entered an acquittal.

The appellant, a paralegal prosecutor, was convicted of breach of trust and attempting to obstruct justice for fixing traffic tickets for associates of a police officer with whom she was having an affair.

The police discovered her conduct through intercepted communications, which were subsequently disclosed to her employer.

On appeal, she argued the verdict was unreasonable, the disclosure of the intercepts violated her Charter rights, the convictions violated the Kienapple principle, and the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences reasonable, the disclosure lawful under the Criminal Code, the offences distinct, and the conditional sentence appropriate.

The Crown applied for an order granting prohibition with certiorari in aid to quash a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The lower court had ruled that amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill C-75) limiting the availability of preliminary inquiries did not apply retrospectively to cases already scheduled.

The Superior Court held that the amendments are procedural, do not affect a vested or substantive right, and therefore apply retrospectively.

The lower court's decision was quashed, and an order was issued prohibiting the Ontario Court of Justice from conducting preliminary inquiries for the respondents.

The accused was tried on charges of fraud over $5,000 and money laundering arising from his operation of two investment companies.

The Crown alleged the accused ran a Ponzi scheme, soliciting funds from investors under the guise of short-term commercial loans while actually using the money to pay earlier investors, cover operating costs, and enrich himself.

The court found that the accused intentionally deceived investors about the nature, purpose, and security of their investments.

The accused was found guilty on both counts, with the court concluding he orchestrated an overarching fraudulent scheme that deprived investors of over $54 million.