23 total
Owner convicted of failing to remain at collision scene based on care and control.
The accused was charged with failing to remain at the scene of a motor vehicle collision and provide her name and address contrary to section 252(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of her section 10(a) and (b) rights.
The court found that police deliberately misled the accused regarding the extent of her jeopardy during a police interview to extract an admission of driving.
The court excluded the accused's statements as a result of the Charter breach.
However, the court convicted the accused on the basis of care and control of the vehicle independent of driving, finding that as the vehicle owner, she had a duty to ensure her name and address were provided at the scene of the collision.
The court discharged two accused on conspiracy charges for insufficient evidence of agreement formation, but committed others to stand trial for trafficking.
At a preliminary hearing, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial on various charges related to marijuana production and trafficking conspiracies.
The court discharged two accused (Tuan Vu and Thu Tran) on conspiracy charges, finding that while they may have facilitated or furthered the commission of crimes, the evidence was insufficient to establish they were parties to the formation of the conspiracy agreement itself.
The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. J.F., which restricts party liability in conspiracy cases to conduct that aids or abets the formation of the agreement.
The court also discharged one accused (Cong Nguyen) on a count involving a warehouse conspiracy, finding that merely selling equipment with knowledge it would be used for illegal purposes does not constitute conspiracy.
Two accused were committed to trial on trafficking and conspiracy counts.
Conviction for possession of cocaine set aside and acquittal entered following Crown concession of unreasonable verdict.
The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine.
The Crown conceded that the guilty verdict was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal.
The court noted it could not address the sentence for a separate marijuana possession conviction as leave to appeal sentence was not sought.