Moiz Karimjee

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and failing to comply with court orders, arguing the trial judge's findings regarding harassing phone calls were unreasonable, that she failed to consider his defence of honest but mistaken belief regarding letters sent from jail, and that her reasons were inadequate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by a reasonable view of the evidence, that her findings on intent precluded the mistaken belief defence, and that her reasons sufficiently explained her decision.

The appellant appealed her conviction for fleeing the scene of an accident.

At trial, the only evidence identifying her as the driver was her confession to the arresting officer.

The Crown did not hold a voir dire to prove the voluntariness of the confession, and the defense moved for a non-suit after the Crown closed its case.

The trial judge dismissed the motion, relying on evidence from a pre-trial application that was not blended into the trial.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that admitting the confession without a voir dire was a fundamental error and that the conviction was unreasonable without admissible evidence identifying the appellant as the driver.

An acquittal was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.

His vehicle was found on its side in a snowy ditch.

The appellant argued the vehicle was inoperable and posed no realistic risk of danger.

The trial judge found that the appellant's persistent requests to passersby to help right the vehicle so he could drive it constituted an intentional course of conduct creating a realistic risk of danger.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for committing an indecent act in a public place.

The appellant had masturbated in his workplace after hours, believing he was alone.

The trial judge convicted him on the basis of wilful blindness, finding he had a positive obligation to verify no one was present.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the W.D. framework to assess the appellant's testimony, which negated a finding of wilful blindness.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving over 80, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence and engaged in speculative reasoning to reconcile conflicting timelines provided by police officers and a tow truck driver.

The appellant contended there was an unexplained 14-minute delay, rendering the breath samples not taken 'as soon as practicable'.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error, properly applied the law, and reasonably concluded that the discrepancies were due to asynchronous timepieces and that the police acted reasonably.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals on charges of impaired driving and driving over 80.

The trial judge had excluded the breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds and failed to make the breath demand as soon as practicable.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by requiring the facts to be exclusively consistent with alcohol impairment to form reasonable grounds, and misapprehended the evidence regarding the timeline of the breath demand.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal criminal convictions entered following guilty pleas, arguing he was unaware that the convictions would trigger deportation proceedings under immigration law.

Applying the factors governing extensions of time for criminal appeals, the court considered whether the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, whether the delay was adequately explained, and whether the proposed appeal had merit.

The court found that the applicant only became aware of the immigration consequences months after the conviction and reasonably formed an intention to appeal once informed of the risk of deportation.

Although the applicant initially benefited from the plea and some factors weighed against relief, the court concluded that the potential deportation consequences and possible issues with the voluntariness and unequivocal nature of the plea raised an arguable appeal.

The extension of time to file a notice of appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed a firearms prohibition and forfeiture order made under section 117.05(4) of the Criminal Code.

The order was initially granted after the appellant, a university student, wrote disturbing comments on an exam, prompting police to seize his lawfully owned firearms.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing judge erred in law by shifting the burden of proof from the Crown to the appellant and by relying on irrelevant considerations such as the number of firearms owned.

The order was set aside and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexually assaulting two minor complainants.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility under the W.(D.) framework and in refusing to allow his counsel to cross-examine the complainants on their victim impact statements at sentencing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and his reasons were sufficient for appellate review.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by effectively denying defence counsel the opportunity to establish an 'air of reality' to justify cross-examining the complainants on their victim impact statements.

The matter was remitted for a fresh sentencing hearing.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample.

The convictions arose from a motor vehicle collision where the appellant was found in the passenger seat of a vehicle, and there was conflicting evidence regarding whether he was the driver.

The appellant also argued his failure to provide a breath sample was not voluntary due to extreme intoxication.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed to reconcile conflicting evidence on critical issues and failed to provide sufficient reasons to allow for meaningful appellate review.