Nicola J. Langille

Nadia Minetto, an accounting manager, defrauded her employer, Wescom Solutions Inc. (WSI), by using its corporate credit card to purchase Apple products and reselling them.

Gabriel Fung, through his businesses GF International and Plus One Solutions, purchased over 10,000 Apple products from Minetto for $5.2 million in cash.

WSI obtained a consent judgment against Minetto and brought an action against Fung and his entities, alleging knowing receipt or wilful blindness to the fraudulent nature of the goods.

The court found that Fung was wilfully blind to the fact that the Apple products were stolen or fraudulently obtained from March 30, 2012, onwards.

Judgment was granted against Fung and his businesses for $5,094,674.72, plus interest, with a corresponding crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against Minetto.

The appellant, Imtiaz Bakhash, appealed his convictions for assault and threatening death, arguing the trial was unfair due to the trial judge's management, curtailing of cross-examination, and reliance on prior misconduct evidence.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge's extensive interventions, while well-intentioned to assist the self-represented accused, compromised the appearance of fairness by usurping defence counsel's function and forcing the disclosure of defence strategy.

The court also found that the trial judge's actions undermined the duty of confidentiality between court-appointed counsel and the accused, even if a full solicitor-client relationship did not exist.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, Brenda Zegil, appealed a sentence for failing to comply with a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order.

The sole issue was whether she should receive credit for 63 days spent in custody in the United States between August 29 and November 1, 2016.

She had been held in "immigration detention" after serving sentences for U.S. charges, before being turned over to Canadian police.

The court considered whether this U.S. custody was "as a result of" the Canadian offences under s. 719(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the appellant failed to establish that the Canadian charges played a role in her U.S. immigration detention.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Two youths, aged 16 at the time of the offence, were convicted of first degree murder in the execution-style killing of another youth.

The Crown applied to have them sentenced as adults.

The youth court judge allowed the Crown's application and imposed life sentences with ten years' parole ineligibility.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the adult sentences, arguing that the youth court judge erred in concluding that the intensive rehabilitative custody supervision (IRCS) program would not adequately address their rehabilitation needs and that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness had not been properly considered.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the youth court judge had made reversible errors in his analysis of the IRCS program and that the Crown had failed to overcome the presumption of diminished moral culpability.

The court substituted youth sentences with IRCS orders.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident on July 18, 2015.

The complainant attended a bar, consumed significant alcohol, and has no memory of events after approximately 2:00 a.m.

Surveillance video evidence established that the complainant became progressively more intoxicated throughout the night.

The Crown argued that the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication.

The defence argued that the complainant's assumption about her lack of consent was unreliable and that the evidence did not establish incapacity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial judge found that while the complainant was severely intoxicated, the evidence established she lacked the cognitive capacity to consent to sexual activity.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.