Najma Jamaldin

The appellant was convicted of five counts of robbery with a firearm and five counts of theft over $5,000 following a trial by judge alone.

Following conviction, the defence advanced a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) plea.

Two forensic psychiatrists testified with conflicting opinions on whether the appellant knew his actions were morally wrong at the time of the offences, with their opinions based on the appellant's self-reports during interviews.

The trial judge assigned no weight to the experts' opinions because they were based on hearsay statements and the appellant had not testified.

The trial judge dismissed the NCR application.

Subsequently, defence counsel informed the trial judge that counsel had agreed before the hearing that the appellant's self-reports could be relied upon for their truth without the appellant testifying.

The trial judge declined to reopen, holding she lacked jurisdiction to do so after rendering a verdict.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in concluding she had no jurisdiction to reopen and erred in failing to engage in proper analysis of the conflicting expert evidence.

The applicant, facing extradition to Romania for a murder conviction, brought a disclosure application to obtain records from the Canadian and Romanian governments to support an abuse of process motion based on allegations of torture.

The court dismissed the application, applying the Larosa test and finding no 'air of reality' to the torture allegations due to significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence and his failure to disclose his conviction to Canadian immigration authorities.

The court also found the requested documents were largely irrelevant or amounted to a fishing expedition.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at his residence and located 505 grams of cocaine hidden in a Kleenex tissue box.

The Crown relied primarily on circumstantial evidence to establish knowledge and control, including the accused’s admitted involvement in marijuana trafficking, drug paraphernalia found in the residence, and his association with a known cocaine trafficker.

The accused testified that he had no knowledge of the cocaine and suggested that a third party with access to the residence may have hidden it there shortly before the search.

The court rejected aspects of the accused’s credibility regarding the extent of his drug trafficking but found that the possibility that the third party concealed the cocaine in the residence raised a reasonable doubt about the accused’s knowledge.

As knowledge was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential element of possession was not established.

The accused brought a s. 8 Charter application challenging the manner in which police executed a search warrant at his residence using a dynamic entry.

The accused argued that the failure to comply with the knock notice rule and the alleged ransacking of the home rendered the search unreasonable and required exclusion of cocaine discovered during the search.

The court reviewed the governing principles from recent jurisprudence concerning dynamic entries and exigent circumstances.

It held that police had reasonable grounds to conduct a dynamic entry based on risks of destruction of cocaine and the possible presence of firearms connected to the drug investigation.

The court further found insufficient evidence that the search itself was conducted in an unreasonably destructive or disorderly manner.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, sought leave to adduce third party suspect evidence suggesting another individual was responsible for the drugs discovered during execution of a search warrant.

The proposed evidence connected the third party to cocaine trafficking and placed him at the residence shortly before police located the drugs, along with evidence of suspicious driving, possession of a large sum of cash, and cocaine discovered at his own residence.

Applying the governing test from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court held that the accused met the evidentiary burden of demonstrating a sufficient connection between the third party and the offence.

The evidence was capable of supporting a reasonable inference that the third party deposited the cocaine at the residence to avoid police detection.

Concerns about the strength of the inference or competing explanations were matters for the trier of fact rather than the threshold admissibility stage.