Moiz Murtaza Karimjee

The accused sought a review of a prior bail denial under section 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances.

The court considered a "beefed-up" release plan including GPS monitoring and culturally appropriate counselling.

Despite reservations about the accused's credibility and lack of full disclosure to the proposed counsellor, the court found that the new plan, combined with the surety's commitment and the accused's time in custody, barely satisfied the secondary grounds for release.

The application for bail review was granted.

The applicant, Michael Kilbride, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for charges including breaking into a private residence and assault.

The court found that the new bail plan, which included house arrest with his mother and cash pledges, did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a de novo hearing or to address the original concerns.

The applicant's extensive criminal record, history of failing to comply with court orders, and the surety's past inability to supervise him led the court to conclude that the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention remained strong.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired driving.

He brought a preliminary motion for the appeal judge to recuse herself based on a reasonable apprehension of bias, which was dismissed as unfounded.

On the substantive appeal, the appellant argued that fresh evidence should be admitted, that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds, that evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and that the verdict was unreasonable based on circumstantial evidence.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors by the trial judge and concluding that the verdict was supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his sentence for mischief under $5000 after pleading guilty to vandalizing an 87-year-old woman's vehicle.

The sentencing judge imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation, rejecting the appellant's request for a conditional discharge.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judge failed to apply the principle of restraint.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the sentence was fit and within the judge's discretion given the need for denunciation.

The respondent sought to commence a private prosecution against the Premier of Ontario regarding COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which a Justice of the Peace refused to receive.

The respondent then applied for mandamus to compel the Justice of the Peace to receive the information.

The Crown brought an application to summarily dismiss the respondent's application.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding the respondent's claims of a fake pandemic and vast conspiracy to be frivolous, vexatious, and lacking any air of reality.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and driving over the legal limit, alleging ineffective assistance by his trial counsel.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence to support this claim, while the Crown applied to summarily dismiss this ground of appeal.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal on the ground of ineffective counsel, finding that the appellant failed to establish the underlying facts of his allegations and that trial counsel had provided highly competent, effective, and reasonable representation.

The Crown applied for a review of a release order under section 521 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was facing multiple sets of charges, including sexual assault and breach of recognizance.

The reviewing judge found that the initial justice made errors of law by failing to apply the reverse onus under section 524(4) and by issuing inconsistent release and detention orders for the same accused.

The reviewing judge vacated the release order and ordered the accused detained on the secondary grounds, finding a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit further offences if released.

The applicant, who was self-represented, applied for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal regarding his convictions for uttering threats and disobeying a court order.

The court applied the three-factor test for extending time to appeal.

The court found that the applicant did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period and that the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The application for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg%.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the breathalyzer technician had formed his own reasonable and probable grounds for the breathalyzer demand, and that he was arbitrarily detained between his arrest and the breathalyzer demand.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence regarding the technician's grounds and concluding that the detention was lawful under s. 497(1.1) of the Criminal Code to secure evidence.

The applicant, a retired television broadcaster charged with criminal harassment, sought a publication ban on his name, arguing that publication would violate his rights under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and cause irreparable damage to his reputation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Charter does not protect a privacy interest to prevent media publication of an accused's name, nor does publication compromise the presumption of innocence.

The court also held that the common law Mentuck test was not met, as the applicant's concerns were purely personal and lacked a public interest component.

The appellant, Ali Fahad, appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the Crown proved a lawful Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand, given the absence of evidence regarding the exact words used by the officer and errors in police notes and advice.

The court found that while exact words are not always necessary, the absence of evidence of the demand's content, coupled with the officer's errors, rendered the conviction unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Mr. Mtonga on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal raised three issues: misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge, insufficient reasons for reasonable doubt, and application of an incorrect mens rea test.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not misapprehend the officer's evidence, provided sufficient reasons by considering the accused's request for a "last chance" to provide a sample, and correctly applied the subjective mens rea test requiring proof of intent to refuse or fail on purpose.

The court emphasized that the accused's request for a further attempt, combined with incomplete officer notes, created a reasonable doubt as to his intent, distinguishing the case from others where such a request was absent.

The applicant, an Indigenous man charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a seven-year-old child, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He sought to overturn a detention order made at his show cause hearing.

The court found that the show cause judge did not err in law or make a clearly inappropriate decision in detaining the applicant on the primary and secondary grounds, given his outstanding charges, history of non-compliance, and concerns regarding the proposed surety.

The application was dismissed and the detention order was upheld.

The applicant sought a detention review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances after pleading guilty to several charges and receiving a sentence of time served, leaving only two sets of charges outstanding.

The court found that the new circumstances, including the anticipated pre-sentence custody credit and the withdrawal of his sister as a surety, would not have affected the original bail judge's decision to detain him on the secondary ground due to his extensive criminal record, escalating violent behaviour, and near certainty of reoffending.

The application for a detention review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for breaching an undertaking not to communicate with his former partner.

The breach occurred when the appellant engaged in FaceTime calls with the complainant while exercising access to their children.

The summary conviction appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant had the requisite subjective mens rea, as he intentionally called the complainant knowing he was bound by a no-contact condition.

The court also upheld the trial judge's refusal to apply the defence of de minimis non curat lex, noting the public interest in enforcing release conditions in domestic violence cases.

The appeal against the suspended sentence and probation was also dismissed.

The appellant, Ferid Retta, appealed his conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The appeal was based on two grounds: first, that the trial judge's finding of Constable Connolly's credibility was unreasonable given the officer's compromised credibility on a Charter issue; and second, that the breath technician's observations of impairment should have been excluded due to a Charter breach, and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessment was reasonable as it was confined to a specific issue, and that the exclusion of the breath technician's observations was not a live issue at trial.

The court affirmed that non-conscriptive observations of impairment are generally admissible despite Charter breaches.

The accused, who is charged with sexually assaulting a deaf woman at a shelter, sought a review of his bail decision, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The accused, who lives with paranoid schizophrenia, proposed a release plan involving supervision by the John Howard Society and living in a rented room.

The court acknowledged the accused's heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 but found the proposed plan lacked adequate supervision.

The application for bail was dismissed, and the accused was detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The applicant, D.M., sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, citing a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the proposed use of a GPS monitoring bracelet.

D.M. was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference and had a history of failing to comply with release conditions.

The court acknowledged COVID-19 as a material change but found the proposed surety, Ms. A.T., lacked sufficient judgment and that the applicant had a history of not adhering to surety directives.

The application for release was denied on both secondary and tertiary grounds, concluding that detention was necessary to prevent further offenses and maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the elevated health risks posed by COVID-19 in custody.

The applicant, M.K., sought a review of his detention order, which was initially based on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The bail review was conducted via audio conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

M.K. faced serious drug trafficking and firearm charges, had a criminal record including prior trafficking convictions and failures to comply with court orders, and was on probation and a firearms prohibition at the time of his arrest.

A new bail plan was proposed, including M.K.'s mother as an additional surety and a GPS monitoring bracelet.

The court found a material change in circumstances, allowing for a de novo hearing.

While the primary and secondary grounds were mitigated by the strengthened bail plan and strong family ties, the tertiary grounds initially favored detention due to the seriousness of the charges and M.K.'s criminal history.

However, M.K.'s specific health vulnerability (prior spontaneous pneumothorax) combined with the heightened risk of COVID-19 transmission in custodial facilities, and the robust bail plan, ultimately led the court to grant release.

The court emphasized that absent M.K.'s particular health vulnerability, the tertiary grounds would have mandated detention.

The accused, Jormond Fraser, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, following two previous detention orders.

The application cited a material change in circumstances due to a new surety, the proposed use of a GPS monitoring bracelet, and the elevated health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic within the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre, particularly given Fraser's history of leukemia.

The court acknowledged the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change allowing a de novo hearing and a relevant factor in assessing the tertiary ground for bail.

However, the proposed surety was deemed unsuitable due to a past failure to report a breach of conditions and current mental health challenges, raising concerns about her ability to supervise effectively.

Despite the increased risk of infection in custody and Fraser's expressed fear, his extensive criminal record, including numerous convictions for failing to comply with court orders and violence against women, led the court to conclude that the proposed bail plan was insufficient to manage the substantial likelihood of him committing further offences.

The bail review was dismissed, and the detention order remained undisturbed.