Melody Izadi

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, possessing hydromorphone, and possessing property obtained by crime, as well as his sentence.

On the conviction appeal, he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence but found no incompetence and no reasonable probability that different tactical choices would have altered the verdict.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued he received insufficient credit for time spent under strict bail conditions.

The Court upheld the sentencing judge's approach of treating the strict bail conditions as a mitigating factor rather than a direct credit against the sentence.

The conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The applicant sought an exemption from a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order made by the Ontario Court of Justice on October 19, 2023, pursuant to section 490.04 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, finding that since the original SOIRA order was made by the Ontario Court of Justice, the application for exemption must be brought in that court, not the Superior Court of Justice.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery and possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking arising from a home invasion on December 5, 2022.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day followed by 3 years probation, with conditions including house arrest (with limited exceptions), electronic supervision for the first year, 50 hours of community service, and participation in counselling and rehabilitative programs.

The court considered the accused's youth (19 at time of offence), lack of prior criminal record, 981 days on strict bail conditions with GPS monitoring, systemic racism and anti-Black racism, prospects for rehabilitation, and the seriousness of the offences including the presence and discharge of a firearm and the significant quantity of Fentanyl.

The accused, Fatah Kulmiye, applied to attend his trial for indictable offences by video conference.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court interpreted sections 715.24 and 715.233 of the Criminal Code, concluding that Crown consent is required for an accused to appear by video conference at a trial for an indictable offence.

The court found that section 715.24 does not provide broad discretion to allow remote attendance without Crown consent for proceedings expressly authorized elsewhere in the Code.

The application was denied, also considering the seriousness of the charges and the lateness of the application.

The defendants were tried on charges including reckless discharge of a firearm, possession of restricted and prohibited firearms, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The charges arose from an incident where multiple shots were fired from a stolen white pick-up truck in a residential area.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were occupants of the vehicle, acted in a joint enterprise, and intentionally discharged the firearms while reckless to the safety of others.

Both defendants were found guilty on all counts.

The defendants, Andre Pyne and Sadri Zorjani, brought applications under sections 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence, with Mr. Zorjani also seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1).

The court dismissed all applications, finding that police had reasonable grounds for arrest, there was no section 10(a) breach, and while a serious section 10(b) breach occurred due to delayed access to counsel, the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) as it was independently discovered and the breach was not deliberate or systemic.

The court also found that the high public interest in prosecuting gun crimes weighed against exclusion.

Fatah Kulmiye, jointly charged with drug trafficking and firearm offences, brought an application for standing to challenge a CDSA search warrant executed at a third-party residence.

Kulmiye was found in the residence during the search, along with drugs and cash, but was a Toronto resident with no personal belongings at the property and no authority to regulate access.

The court applied the factors for determining a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the Charter, as outlined in R. v. Edwards and R. v. El-Azrak.

The court found that Kulmiye, as a transient guest, did not establish a subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched premises, distinguishing his situation from cases involving a direct interest in a property used for a joint enterprise.

Consequently, the application for standing was dismissed.

This is a criminal trial under the Youth Criminal Justice Act where a young person, S.B.S., faced three allegations of sexual assault involving his younger cousin.

The court assessed the credibility of both the complainant and the young person, finding both to be largely credible.

Despite the compelling testimony of the complainant, the court found that inconsistencies in her account, combined with the young person's credible denials and other defence evidence, raised a reasonable doubt regarding the allegations.

Consequently, S.B.S. was acquitted of all counts.

The defendant, Stephan Myers, was found guilty of human trafficking a vulnerable 18-year-old and possession of an illegal handgun.

The Crown sought a global sentence of ten years, while the defence requested 3.5 years imprisonment plus a conditional sentence.

The court conditionally stayed two counts based on the Kienapple principle.

The judge considered various aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability, the defendant's control, drug addiction, duration of trafficking, emotional manipulation, and the firearm.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's age, family support, rehabilitation efforts, and the impact of anti-Black racism on his background.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation.

The global sentence imposed was six years and eight months, comprising five years and two months for human trafficking and eighteen months consecutive for the firearm offence.

In this omnibus Charter application arising from a human trafficking and sexual assault prosecution, the applicants challenged multiple search warrants, production orders, arrests, detentions, right to counsel breaches, delayed bail appearances, alleged racial bias, negligent investigation, and disclosure failures.

The court found several serious Charter breaches, including invalid judicial authorizations relating to one dwelling, one phone, and one production order, unreasonable manner of search at one residence, multiple right to counsel breaches, and unlawful delay in bringing two accused before a justice.

A stay of proceedings was granted to one applicant because cumulative and partly systemic misconduct would further prejudice the integrity of the justice system if the prosecution continued.

Another applicant obtained exclusion of his police statement and cellphone evidence under s. 24(2), while the remaining applications for a stay were dismissed.

The three accused were charged with various offences related to the human trafficking and sexual exploitation of an 18-year-old complainant.

The Crown alleged that one accused recruited the complainant into the sex trade, acted as her pimp, and exploited her while she suffered from a severe cocaine addiction.

The other two accused were alleged to have participated in her exploitation, sexual assault, and procuring.

The court carefully assessed the complainant's credibility, noting her memory was affected by trauma and heavy drug use, but found her core allegations against the primary accused were corroborated by digital evidence and the recovery of firearms she disposed of on his behalf.

The primary accused was found guilty of human trafficking, procuring, receiving material benefits, advertising sexual services, unauthorized possession of a firearm, and uttering threats.

The second accused was found guilty only of receiving a material benefit from sexual services (selling her cocaine), and acquitted of the other charges due to reasonable doubt.

The third accused was acquitted of all charges due to the unreliability of the complainant's evidence against him.

A defence application for a stay of proceedings based on lost police cruiser video and unrecorded interviews was dismissed.

Andre Martin was convicted of attempted murder with a firearm and unauthorized firearm possession.

The Crown sought an 18-year sentence, while the defence proposed 6-10 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, the victim's permanent paralysis, and the offender's criminal record.

Mitigating factors included provocation, a dysfunctional upbringing, and systemic anti-Black racism.

The court emphasized general deterrence, denunciation, and the importance of rehabilitation, imposing a total sentence of 12 years, accounting for pre-trial custody and future COVID-related restrictions.

The Crown appealed directed verdicts of acquittal and a stay of proceedings in a multi-accused robbery trial, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence and granting a stay for lost evidence.

The respondents cross-appealed their convictions.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence due to insufficient reasons and in granting a stay without assessing prejudice.

The Crown's appeal was granted, setting aside the acquittals and stay, and ordering a new trial on those counts.

The respondents' cross-appeals against conviction were dismissed as the similar act rulings had benefited them or were consented to, and other grounds lacked merit.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a loaded firearm following a shooting at a motorcycle club event.

The Crown relied on the hearsay statements of a deceased witness and an absent victim, which the court admitted under the principled exception.

The accused claimed he shot the victim in self-defence and that the bullet hitting the victim was an accident.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding the shooting was intentional, disproportionate, and motivated by animus.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder and the firearm offence, with the aggravated assault charge conditionally stayed.

A young person was found guilty of aggravated assault following a trial.

The Crown sought a 9-month custody and supervision order followed by 14 months of probation.

The defence sought a non-custodial sentence, arguing that the accused's 914 days of pre-trial house arrest should be credited as equivalent to the proposed custodial sentence.

The court imposed a 24-month probation order with conditions including 50 hours of community service, a 5-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, finding that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate given the accused's vulnerability, mental health difficulties, compliance during house arrest, and the lengthy period already spent under restrictive bail conditions.

A youth was charged with attempt to commit murder and aggravated assault following a stabbing incident.

The complainant, a 23-year-old male, was stabbed twice in the neck and face by the accused and another person after being lured to a meeting.

The Crown sought convictions on both counts.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault but acquitted him of attempt to commit murder, finding that while the stabbing was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the specific intent to kill could not be inferred as the only reasonable inference from the evidence.

The court noted credibility concerns regarding the complainant but found substantial corroborating evidence including surveillance video, witness testimony, and medical evidence supporting the assault conviction.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proved that a sergeant observed the accused driving erratically, smelled alcohol on the accused's breath, and obtained an admission of drinking.

An Approved Screening Device test was administered at the roadside, which the accused failed.

The accused was arrested and transported to a police station where approved instrument testing resulted in readings of 170 and 180 milligrams.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the stop, the ASD demand, the arrest, and the delay in providing access to counsel.

The court found no Charter breaches and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Over 80 following a traffic stop where he registered a fail on a roadside screening device (ASD).

The defence challenged the reliability of the ASD result, arguing that without evidence of calibration, the officer lacked an objectively reasonable belief that the device was in proper working order, thereby undermining the basis for arrest and the subsequent breath demand.

The court found that the officer's reliance on a self-test met the low threshold for establishing an objectively reasonable belief in the device's working order.

The Crown proved the essential elements of the Over 80 charge, resulting in a conviction.

The Operation Impaired charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of impairment.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The overall delay from charge to anticipated trial was approximately 70 months.

Applying the framework from R. v. Morin, the court analyzed the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice.

Significant portions of the delay were found to be waived by the defence or attributable to inherent time requirements, with only 14 months of unwaived institutional and Crown delay.

Although some prejudice was inferred from the length of delay, the court found the prejudice modest and concluded the delay was not unreasonable.

The defendant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay the balance of a contract for boiler installation and related work.

The defendant alleged the plaintiff was part of an organized crime conspiracy to sabotage the project and that the trial judge improperly interfered with the presentation of its case.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and dismissed the conspiracy allegations as frivolous.

Although the trial judge's excessive interference in witness examinations amounted to an error in law, the court declined to order a new trial, concluding that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred given the complete lack of merit to the defence.