Sarah Malik

The appellant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine into Canada.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding that his discussions with co-conspirators amounted to a concluded agreement, and that the trial judge misapplied the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant had agreed to join the conspiracy to import cocaine by airplane.

The court also held that the trial judge properly applied the Carter framework and did not improperly rely on hearsay evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of conspiring to import cocaine into Australia and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.

The Crown's case relied heavily on cell phone data, including text messages, WhatsApp group chats, and audio recordings involving the appellant and his co-conspirators.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admissibility of the audio recordings, the trial judge's treatment of a co-conspirator's testimony, the application of the wilful blindness standard, and the characterization of the conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or legal analysis.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the nine-year sentence was fit and did not violate the principle of parity when compared to the co-accused's sentence, given the co-accused's early guilty plea.

The offender was convicted of conspiring to import 300 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 15 to 16 years, while the defence argued for a significantly lower sentence based on the offender's limited role and the principle of parity with co-conspirators.

The court found that the offender played a minor role in the conspiracy and noted that co-conspirators with greater involvement received or were facing sentences of 5 to 6.5 years.

Applying the principles of proportionality and parity, the court determined a fit sentence was 8 years, reduced to 7.5 years to account for strict pre-sentence bail conditions.

The accused was charged with possessing and transferring firearms, and possessing proceeds of crime, following an undercover police operation.

The Crown alleged the accused was the supplier of firearms sold by a co-actor to an undercover officer.

The court admitted various pieces of evidence, including cross-count similar fact evidence, adoptive admissions, and hearsay statements under the co-actors' exception.

However, applying the standard for circumstantial evidence, the court found that while the evidence was highly suspicious, it supported other reasonable inferences, such as mere association or involvement in other criminality.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including possession of stolen property and firearms following a break and enter.

During his arrest after fleeing a stolen van, a police officer shot the accused in the leg, believing the accused was armed and about to shoot.

The accused brought a Charter application under ss. 7 and 12, alleging excessive force by the police.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the officer's belief that he faced imminent grievous bodily harm or death was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and entered convictions on counts 2 through 6 of the indictment.