3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld two murder convictions but ordered a new trial for a third co-accused due to the highly prejudicial admission of unrelated bad character evidence.
Three appellants were convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, and committing those offences for the benefit of a criminal organization arising from a drive-by shooting in Toronto.
The Crown's case relied heavily on testimony from two gang members who testified the appellants confessed to the shooting.
The appellants challenged numerous aspects of the trial including jury selection procedures, joinder of counts, admission of bad character evidence, ballistics evidence, jury instructions on Vetrovec witnesses, and alleged Charter violations.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of Atkins and Riley but allowed Wisdom's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of an attempted theft four months after the shooting, which had minimal probative value but significant prejudicial effect.
The court dismissed the accused's Charter applications and convicted him of possession of counterfeit marks, possession of property obtained by crime, and fraud.
The accused was charged with two counts of possession of counterfeit marks (Canadian citizenship cards and social insurance number cards), one count of possession of property obtained by crime (licence plates), and four counts of fraud over $5,000.
The accused brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of his detention, the search of his vehicle, and a strip search conducted at the police station.
The court dismissed all Charter applications and found the accused guilty on counts relating to possession of counterfeit marks, possession of property obtained by crime, and fraud in relation to certain bank accounts.
The accused was acquitted on one fraud count.
The accused was acquitted of sexual assault and sexual interference due to reasonable doubt arising from implausibilities in the complainant's testimony.
The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference arising from allegations that he sexually touched and propositioned a 15-year-old complainant on three occasions during the summer of 2013.
The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's testimony.
The defendant and his wife denied all allegations, and the defendant's niece provided corroborating evidence regarding one of the alleged incidents.
The court found material implausibilities in the complainant's account, particularly regarding her presence in the defendant's home on the evening of the Bellwoods Park incident and her return to the defendant's home on the Thanksgiving weekend despite prior negative experiences.
The court also found the defendant's niece to be a credible and persuasive witness whose evidence contradicted the complainant's account of the Canada Day weekend incident.
The defendant was acquitted of both charges.
