Mindy Caterina

The appellant appealed from a conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown consented to the admission of fresh evidence and conceded that a new trial should be ordered.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of producing marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police executed a valid search warrant at a bungalow where a grow-op was operating and seized a large quantity of marijuana.

The appellant was arrested as she approached the bungalow, and a house key was seized from her incident to arrest.

The appellant was delayed over three hours in accessing counsel in breach of s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded the s. 10(b) breach.

The appellant argued the breach tainted not only the seizure of the house key but also the drugs seized under the search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the seizure of drugs under the valid search warrant was causally, temporally, and contextually distinct from the arrest and subsequent s. 10(b) breach.

Regarding the house key, while subject to potential exclusion, the Grant factors favoured admission as the breach was not strategic or serious, the impact was minimal given other admissible evidence, and society had an interest in trial on the merits.

The appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking based primarily on a police officer's identification of the appellant as the driver of a minivan that sped past the officer at 50 km/h from a distance of 15 feet.

The officer's fleeting observation lasted only seconds and was limited to describing the driver as an Asian male with dark hair.

The appellant's wallet containing an OHIP card with photograph and an inhaler were found in the vehicle, along with seven large garbage bags of marijuana.

The trial judge found these items, combined with the officer's identification, sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the conviction unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.

The appellant, Manpreet Sohal, appealed his conviction for impaired driving, challenging the trial judge's finding that he was the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident.

The appeal raised five grounds, including alleged failures by the trial judge to properly instruct himself on eyewitness identification frailties, misapprehension of evidence, failure to consider collusion, erroneous treatment of absence of embellishment, and improper inferences drawn from video evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the first four grounds.

While the trial judge erred in drawing certain inferences from the video footage without seeking submissions from counsel, this error was deemed to be of negligible weight and did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was convicted at trial of producing methamphetamine and possessing it for the purpose of trafficking following a fire at an industrial complex containing a clandestine drug lab.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the appellant's fingerprint on a pop can found in the unit and a cell phone found in the lab that the trial judge concluded belonged to the appellant.

The phone contained incriminating evidence including photographs of equipment used in methamphetamine production.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: improper reliance on certified court documents to link him to the phone, misapprehension of evidence regarding photographs on the phone, and that the conviction on the possession for trafficking count was unreasonable or insufficiently reasoned.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's reasoning and that the circumstantial evidence cumulatively supported the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with fraud and BIA offences arising from her voluntary assignment in bankruptcy.

During her trial, she brought an application to exclude statements she made to the Official Receiver during a mandatory examination under s. 161 of the BIA, arguing the Official Receiver was a 'person in authority' and the statements were involuntary.

The court held that the Official Receiver was not a person in authority, as she had no influence or control over any criminal prosecution and was merely fulfilling her regulatory duties.

Furthermore, even if she were a person in authority, the statements were voluntary as there were no threats, promises, or oppressive conduct.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The plaintiff, N.M. Davis Corporation Limited, moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant, Marshall Stuart Ross, specifically seeking a detailed Schedule B regarding the Crown disclosure brief from a related criminal matter.

The plaintiff sought this information to determine when the co-defendant, Eva Jacqueline Wower, might have anticipated Ross's conviction for murder, which is relevant to the plaintiff's claim that Ross fraudulently conveyed properties to Wower under the guise of a divorce to defeat a judgment.

The defendant Ross resisted, arguing irrelevance and disproportionality given the 13 boxes of documents.

The court, applying principles from D.P. v. Wagg and Rule 29.2, found that while the timing of disclosure was relevant, requiring a full cataloguing of the entire Crown brief was disproportionate.

The court ordered Ross to amend his affidavit to identify transmission documents (e.g., covering letters) indicating when portions of the Crown brief were received by his counsel, without requiring a full Wagg screening process for these transmission documents.

Costs were awarded in the cause.

The defendant was found guilty of possession of MDMA and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, marihuana, and psilocybin.

The court considered the large quantities of drugs, including 4.7 kilograms of cocaine, and the commercial nature of the enterprise as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's lack of a criminal record, employment history, and family ties.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, reduced to 6 years and 6 months after applying 18 months of credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, along with various forfeiture and prohibition orders.