Moiz Rahman

The appellants were convicted of conspiracy related to the illegal entry of individuals into Canada.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting intercepted communications obtained pursuant to Ontario wiretap authorizations that relied on evidence from a Quebec authorization.

The appellant Kullman also argued that the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay statements of his co-conspirator under the Carter approach, arguing it did not meet the necessity and reliability criteria established in Starr.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no jurisdictional defects in the wiretap authorizations and holding that the traditional co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule survives the principled approach established in Starr.

The applicants applied to re-open an appeal previously decided by the Court of Appeal, arguing that the court was misled by false evidence regarding the status of a police informant.

The Crown conceded that newly disclosed evidence contradicted the evidence relied upon in the original appeal, which had determined the individual was a police informer rather than a police agent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that while there is inherent jurisdiction to set aside a judgment based on fraud or newly discovered evidence, the proper forum to seek such relief is the court of first instance (the Superior Court), not the appellate court.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine, extortion, threatening death, and breach of probation, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliance on the Crown witnesses' evidence.

However, the Crown conceded that the threatening counts should have been stayed as they were subsumed in the extortion count.

The threatening counts were stayed, but the appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the total sentence was upheld.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine, extortion, uttering threats, and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliance on confirmatory evidence.

However, based on a Crown concession, the Court stayed the threatening counts as they were subsumed in the extortion count.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed and the totality of the sentences was upheld.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for various drug-related offences.

The Crown's case relied entirely on intercepted communications and derived evidence.

The appellants argued the wiretap authorizations violated s. 8 of the Charter due to lack of reasonable and probable grounds and failure to demonstrate investigative necessity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the authorizations were properly issued and the evidence supported the convictions.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeals, varying one appellant's intermittent sentence to time served due to post-sentencing progress, and adjusting the other's intermittent sentence schedule to accommodate employment.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in heroin and trafficking in heroin.

At trial, the judge directed a verdict of acquittal on possession charges but allowed the jury to consider evidence relating to those charges when deliberating on the remaining counts.

On appeal, the appellant argued this violated the Supreme Court's ruling in Grdic.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Grdic does not apply to overlapping evidence in a single proceeding with multiple counts, as established in Arp.

The court also dismissed grounds of appeal relating to the 'in furtherance' jury instruction and the trial judge's reference to money found in a stuffed bear.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after an undercover police operation.

At trial, the appellant testified and admitted to a prior conviction for obstructing police, but the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the limited use of this prior conviction.

On appeal, the Crown conceded the error but argued the curative proviso should apply.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no realistic possibility that the jury would misuse the single, unrelated prior conviction to infer the appellant was a bad person or likely to traffic cocaine.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by mechanically applying a two-stage process, which led to a failure to consider the appellant's extraordinary cooperation with police and significant rehabilitation.

The appeal was allowed, and the custodial sentence was varied to a 20-month conditional sentence, with the three-year probation term remaining.

The appellant, a 14-year-old young offender, appealed his conditional discharge for trafficking $10 worth of marijuana to undercover police officers at a rock concert.

At trial, his application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by applying an overly onerous test for entrapment from Amato rather than the correct test from Mack.

Based on the trial judge's own findings that the appellant would not have sold the drugs but for the officers' importuning, the Court concluded the police went beyond providing an opportunity and induced the offence.

A stay of proceedings was entered.

The appellant challenged convictions for trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in heroin arising from two undercover drug transactions supported by surveillance, intercepted telephone conversations, and undercover officer evidence.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence compellingly established knowledge and participation in the conspiracy, and rejected arguments that the trial judge failed to identify the evidentiary basis for conviction or reversed the burden of proof.

Applying the co-conspirator evidence framework, the court found no basis to interfere with the convictions.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal and reduced the custodial term from eleven years to eight years, placing the appellant at the lower end of the accepted range.