Raoof Zamanifar

The appellant appealed a criminal conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal and delivered an oral judgment the same day, unanimously dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction.

Short reasons were indicated to follow.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in requiring proof that the offence occurred within a specific one-hour window after the accused raised an alibi defence.

The accused cross-appealed his conviction for assault, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the exact time of the offence was not an essential element and the alibi did not freeze the Crown's case to the time estimated by the complainant in cross-examination.

A conviction for sexual assault was substituted.

The accused's cross-appeal was dismissed, as the trial judge's treatment of the defence evidence was not inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals of James Keena, who was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault involving a complainant aged 14-15.

The court found that the trial judge correctly applied the law regarding the accused’s failure to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age and was justified in finding recklessness.

The sentence of five years’ imprisonment was found to be within the appropriate range, considering aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court rejected the argument that the complainant’s participation was a mitigating factor.

The appellant, P.M., appealed convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving his niece and daughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge’s findings that the appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages with the complainant provided to police with her mother’s consent, that the trial judge properly excluded a sexually explicit text from an unknown sender under ss. 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code, and that the jury was properly instructed regarding the absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate.

The decision clarifies the law on privacy expectations in electronic communications in the context of child complainants and the admissibility of evidence of sexual knowledge.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his wife.

He argued the trial judge erred by engaging in propensity reasoning regarding an audio recording, misapprehending evidence of unconscious collusion between the complainant and her children, and applying uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the audio recording was properly used to assess credibility, the trial judge reasonably rejected the possibility of unconscious collusion, and the credibility findings were entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed his designation as a dangerous offender and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.

The central issue was whether the appellant's violent conduct was intractable and untreatable.

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred by ignoring a gap in his criminal record and by failing to consider his circumstances and the potential for intensive treatment in the federal penitentiary system.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly considered all evidence, including the appellant's history of violence, treatment resistance, and lack of motivation, and reasonably concluded that there was no realistic prospect of controlling his risk to the public through less onerous means.

This is an application for bail pending appeal by an applicant convicted of six serious sexual offences against two younger cousins, for which he received a 12-year global sentence.

The applicant sought bail under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, arguing his appeal was not frivolous and his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The Court of Appeal found the first ground of appeal (lack of accredited interpreter) frivolous due to insufficient evidence.

The second ground (jurisdiction to amend indictment for charges spanning youth and adult periods) was deemed weak, with the court finding no material prejudice from the amendment.

Given the seriousness of the offences and the diminished strength of the appeal grounds, the court concluded that the applicant failed to establish that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal for aggravated sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his mens rea analysis by requiring evidence of the complainant's communication of non-consent, which was irrelevant given that no defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent was raised.

This legal error materially impacted the acquittal.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, entered a conviction for aggravated sexual assault, and remitted the matter for sentencing before a different judge.

The appellant, Geoffrey Le Feuvre, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), arguing the Board's finding of significant public threat was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the appeal moot because a subsequent urgent hearing resulted in a new disposition transferring the appellant to a different facility with community living privileges.

The court declined to hear the appeal on its merits due to the material change in circumstances and ordered an expedited new hearing by the Board to assess the significant threat issue based on the appellant's current situation.

The appellant, J.F., appealed his convictions for multiple offences including assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, and careless storage of firearms.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility, specifically regarding the explanation of memory gaps due to trauma, reliance on testimonial demeanour, and the use of lack of exaggeration.

The appellant also argued insufficient reasons for the convictions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the principles of credibility assessment, did not reverse the burden of proof, and provided sufficient reasons for the verdict.

The appellant, a former high school teacher, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction stemmed from an incident with a former student.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility analysis, including the permissible use of evidence regarding the appellant's breach of professional obligations.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal, affirming the 18-month custodial sentence and rejecting arguments that the trial judge erred in using good character as an aggravating factor or that the sentence was unfit.

The appellant, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed on three grounds: the trial judge's failure to provide a standalone instruction on collusion, the admission of in-dock identification evidence from an eyewitness who previously failed to identify him, and the refusal to grant a mistrial following prejudicial remarks by the Crown in closing arguments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's general cautions on witness credibility were sufficient to address collusion concerns, the discretionary decision to admit in-dock identification evidence was not erroneous given the strong corrective instructions provided, and the Crown's improper remarks did not warrant a mistrial as they were adequately cured by the trial judge's clear instructions to the jury.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) in 2015, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued he no longer posed a significant threat due to medication compliance and incident-free reintegration.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the ORB's decision on a reasonableness standard, considering the paramount public safety, the appellant's mental condition, and reintegration.

Despite progress, the ORB found a significant threat remained due to the appellant's limited insight into his illness, potential for non-adherence to treatment without supervision, and expert psychiatric opinion.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conditional discharge.

The appellant, convicted of two counts of break and enter, appealed his 3-year sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by incorrectly applying Gladue principles.

Specifically, the appellant contended the trial judge failed in her duty to fill evidentiary gaps regarding rehabilitation options.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach.

The court held that the trial judge was not obligated to grant further adjournments, as defence counsel had provided significant information about the appellant's Indigenous background, and the judge had inquired about rehabilitation programs, which the appellant declined.

The respondent was acquitted of child luring, with the trial judge finding him reckless as to the complainants' ages but concluding recklessness was insufficient mens rea based on a misinterpretation of R. v. Morrison.

The Court of Appeal clarified that recklessness as to age is sufficient mens rea for child luring under s. 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code where the Crown proves an actual child complainant, distinguishing this from police sting operations.

However, as the trial judge did not make findings on the respondent's subjective intent to facilitate a secondary offence, the appeal was allowed, acquittals set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, having claimed self-defence at trial.

The trial judge rejected the self-defence claim, finding the appellant was the aggressor.

The appellant appealed the conviction, alleging legal errors in the application of self-defence provisions under s. 34 of the Criminal Code and a failure to give adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's holistic examination of the self-defence claim, concluding that the appellant armed himself and initiated the confrontation with an aggressive intent, not for self-defence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant, Vadim Ilia, appealed convictions for accessing and possessing child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his Charter application to exclude evidence obtained via search warrants.

The trial judge had found a Charter violation due to a misdescription in one warrant but admitted the evidence, and relied on a prior 2015 investigation to establish reasonable grounds for the warrants, despite the Crown's concession against its use for that purpose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 2015 investigation was properly available for consideration and, in any event, there was no "gap" in the reasonable grounds for the warrants, as the possibility of third-party internet access was not sufficiently weighty to undermine the probability of the IP address being used by someone at the linked address.

The applicant, Ross Jacko, sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

The application was brought under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

While the Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous, the court found the proposed release plan, involving two sureties (mother and friend) and strict terms, insufficient to address flight risk and public safety concerns.

Given the applicant's extensive criminal record, history of violent offences, and prior bail breaches, the court was not satisfied he would surrender or that his detention was unnecessary in the public interest.

The application was dismissed, with an order to expedite the appeal hearing.

The appellant, B.S., appealed his conviction for indecent assault and the imposed sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.

The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's reliability and credibility, and the rejection of the appellant's evidence.

The sentence appeal argued the trial judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence, particularly in light of the appellant's Indigenous status and the absence of a Gladue report at sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, affirming the trial judge's findings on credibility and reliability, and upholding the custodial sentence as appropriate given the nature of the offence against a vulnerable child.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for a violent assault due to schizophrenia, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to maintain his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (a high-security facility) rather than transferring him to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (a medium-security facility closer to his family).

The Court of Appeal applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Board's disposition.

Given the appellant's history of violent and volatile behavior, fluctuating medication compliance, and St. Joseph's stated inability to manage him, the court found the Board's decision to keep him at Waypoint reasonable and dismissed the appeal.