Ravin Pillay

The appellants appealed their convictions for first-degree and second-degree murder arising from a fatal group assault in a mall parking lot.

The Court of Appeal allowed the first appellant's appeal in part, finding the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on the relationship between planning and deliberation and the mental element for murder under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

A conviction for second-degree murder was substituted.

The second appellant's appeal was dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in his instructions regarding the pathologist's evidence, the voluntariness of police statements, or the reasonableness of the verdict.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing eyewitness identification evidence and in refusing to re-open the trial to consider a booking photo as fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was alive to the frailties of eyewitness testimony and made no error in refusing to re-open the trial, noting the booking photo was not materially dissimilar to the witness's description and trial counsel likely made a tactical decision not to use it.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for possession of and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

They argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing their Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through wiretaps and search warrants, claiming the affidavit supporting the authorization contained misstatements and failed to establish investigative necessity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the errors were minor and made in good faith, and that investigative necessity was established given the broad objectives of the investigation.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal.

The respondent fled the jurisdiction, and the court appointed an amicus curiae to represent his interests.

The Crown argued the amicus should be paid at legal aid rates by analogy to s. 684 of the Criminal Code, while the amicus sought payment from $300,000 seized from the respondent upon his arrest, pursuant to s. 462.34.

The court ordered the federal Crown to pay the amicus at a reasonable rate and recover the sum from the seized funds.