Megan Howatt

The accused, the CEO of a Shariah-compliant home financing company and the chair of its Shariah Ethics Board, were charged with theft, fraud, money laundering, and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act offences.

The charges arose after the company was ordered into receivership and the CEO used company funds to purchase over $2 million in gold and silver bullion, which he claimed was to pay the Ethics Board for past services in accordance with Islamic finance principles.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the mens rea for the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, as the CEO had an honest belief, based on the Mudarabah partnership structure and Shariah law, that he was authorized to use the funds for this purpose.

Both accused were acquitted of all charges.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed on February 1, 2011 by Justice Gary T. Trotter of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent, the Court of Appeal for Ontario varied the sentence in one respect only: the credit for presentence custody was reduced from 6 months to 6 months less one day.

Mario Inacio, 39, was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration following a Crown application under ss. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that Inacio met the criteria for dangerous offender designation, having committed serious personal injury offences including robbery, extortion, unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, threatening death, and robbery with an imitation firearm.

The decision was based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, a high likelihood of future violent reoffending, and the intractability of his conduct, despite some recent positive institutional behaviour.

The court concluded that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

The accused was charged following a domestic assault incident.

Police responded to a 911 call reporting an assault in progress and entered the accused's residence without a warrant to ensure the safety of occupants.

Upon locating the accused in the basement, officers did not immediately inform him of the reasons for his detention or his rights to counsel.

The accused made incriminating statements during this period.

The court found that while the warrantless entry was justified under exigent circumstances, the failure to promptly inform the accused of his Charter rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) constituted a breach.

The incriminating statements were excluded under section 24(2) as their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory victim surcharge imposed under section 737 of the Criminal Code, arguing it violates sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellants were impoverished offenders with mental and physical disabilities, unemployment, and substance abuse issues.

The trial judges had refused to impose the surcharge, finding it unconstitutional.

The Crown appealed and the Superior Court judges overturned these decisions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory victim surcharge, finding that while it engages the appellants' liberty interests, it does not violate section 7 because impoverished offenders cannot be imprisoned for non-payment (inability to pay is a reasonable excuse), extensions of time to pay are available, and the deprivation is not grossly disproportionate to the important objectives of the surcharge regime.

The court also found the surcharge does not violate section 12 of the Charter as it is not cruel and unusual treatment, being disproportionate but not grossly disproportionate.