Sarah Shaikh

The appellant, Nigel Lewis, appealed his convictions for importation and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and sought leave to appeal his three-and-a-half-year custodial sentence.

The convictions arose from a controlled delivery of cocaine hidden in a package.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's inference of the appellant's knowledge and control of the drugs to be reasonable, dismissing the conviction appeal.

Regarding the sentence, the court found the three-and-a-half-year sentence to be within the appropriate range for the amount of cocaine (132 grams), distinguishing it from cases involving guilty pleas and emphasizing that sentencing is not a mathematical calculation.

The court upheld the trial judge's balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of possession of various controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment and storage unit.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge gave an unfair and unbalanced jury charge and erred in refusing to hear a mid-trial Charter application challenging the storage unit search.

He also appealed his five-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions adequate and the refusal of the untimely Charter application justified.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, save for setting aside the victim surcharge.

The Crown brought a motion to summarily dismiss the responding parties' application for disclosure under s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The responding parties sought disclosure of alleged out-of-court communications between the trial judge and an FBI handler, which were referenced in a book published by an undercover agent, to support a reasonable apprehension of bias claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's motion, finding it premature to conclude the bias claim could not succeed, and ordered the Crown to make further inquiries regarding the alleged communications.

The Attorney General for Ontario and the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario (CLA) sought leave to intervene in an upcoming appeal concerning the scope of the actus reus of importing contraband.

The Attorney General sought to argue the impact of the definition on provincial prosecutions of importing firearms and child pornography.

The CLA sought to argue that extending the actus reus beyond the immediate entry point disproportionately impacts racialized communities, relying on social context evidence.

The court granted both applications for leave to intervene, finding the proposed arguments and materials relevant and non-controversial.

This appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained following an unlawful arrest and unreasonable search, and the reasonableness of the conviction for drug and firearm offences.

Police, after a search warrant was denied, arrested the accused as a suspected drug buyer.

A search incident to arrest yielded drugs and a firearm.

The trial judge found Charter breaches (ss. 8 and 9) but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding police conduct negligent but not egregious.

The accused was convicted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, finding sufficient grounds for investigative detention, no improper disregard of the justice of the peace's decision, and that negligent conduct does not automatically lead to exclusion.

The Court also found the conviction reasonable based on circumstantial evidence of the accused's knowledge of the contraband.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession and distribution of child pornography, arguing that his Charter rights under ss. 7 and 10(b) were infringed regarding statements made to police.

The trial judge had found the statements admissible, concluding no detention occurred.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was psychologically detained when questioned at his home without being informed of his right to counsel, constituting a serious Charter breach.

The subsequent statement at the police station was also tainted.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the Court determined that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the willful disregard of Charter rights and the significant impact on the accused, despite the evidence's reliability.

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

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of sexual assault, two counts of touching a person under 14 for a sexual purpose, and two counts of invitation of a person under 14 to sexual touching, arising from alleged offences committed in 1995 and 1996 when the appellant was a 21-year-old student living with the complainant's family.

The trial judge convicted on six of eight counts.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge erred in dismissing character evidence regarding the appellant's years as a youth hockey coach; (2) the trial judge failed to properly consider evidence of innocent collusion between the complainant and his younger sister; and (3) the trial judge applied a stricter standard of scrutiny to defence evidence than to Crown evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 16, 2018.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding of a direct connection between his substance abuse and his psychotic state at the time of the index offences, as well as the Board's conclusion that a significant threat to public safety remained.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable for the Board to rely on the treating psychiatrist's opinion and to impose a conditional discharge given the appellant's progress balanced against ongoing risks.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

At trial, the appellant argued he had an honest but mistaken belief that the complainant consented to the sexual activity.

The trial judge rejected this defence, finding that the complainant's obvious intoxication vitiated any consent and that the appellant's decision to engage in sexual activity was either reckless or wilfully blind.

The trial judge also found that silence, passivity, and ambiguous conduct do not constitute consent, and that the complainant's actions in the bathtub could not be said to constitute consent to vaginal penetration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for theft over $5,000 and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to caution the jury against speculating on the reason for his administrative leave, which he contended raised an inference of bad character.

The Court of Appeal rejected this ground, finding that the trial judge had adequately instructed the jury not to speculate about missing evidence.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant challenged a $75,000 restitution order to St. Anne's Church, arguing that compensation should have been pursued through civil proceedings and that there was insufficient factual basis for the restitution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the restitution order, finding it was properly supported by evidence and reflected the need for denunciation and deterrence in a case involving breach of trust by a priest who misappropriated church donations.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against a friend of his and his long-time girlfriend.

The case rested largely on the complainant's recognition of the appellant as a man she saw standing in a doorway for several seconds immediately after waking up in a dark room, and on the appellant's equivocal responses when confronted by his girlfriend about the allegations.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by instructing the jury that recognition evidence of a known person is different from identification evidence of a stranger, when in fact recognition evidence is subject to the same frailties and risks.

The trial judge also erred by failing to instruct the jury on the dangers of relying on reaction evidence, particularly where the accused was confronted with vague allegations and given no details of the specific conduct alleged.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

Appeal from conviction and sentence.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's treatment of hearsay evidence, application of the W.D. test for assessing credibility, and delay in giving reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly acknowledged hearsay limitations, correctly applied the W.D. test by considering the totality of evidence and burden of proof, and that any delay in reasons was justified by efforts to accommodate the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appellants were convicted of production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a trial in Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellants appealed on grounds that evidence seized in breach of their Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, and 10(b)) should have been excluded under s. 24(2), and that the trial judge erred in procedural matters and in accepting co-accused evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the evidence of marijuana odour and a water bill should have been excluded due to a serious and deliberate s. 10(b) breach, the convictions were nonetheless supported by ample remaining evidence, including the appellants' extended presence in a sophisticated grow operation and corroborating testimony from the co-accused.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for importing heroin and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, as well as sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant did not dispute physical possession of 146 grams of heroin delivered by FedEx from India.

His defence was that he believed he was receiving electronics for a fee of $800 as part of an import scheme.

The trial judge rejected this explanation as neither credible nor plausible and convicted him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal on all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's reasoning regarding the actus reus and mens rea of importing, the appellant's knowledge or wilful blindness, the proper drawing of inferences, the burden of proof, and the Crown's cross-examination.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the six-year concurrent sentences fit given the nature and amount of heroin, financial motive, and prior criminal record.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

Police intercepted communications and observed the accused purchasing approximately 2985 grams of heroin with a street value between $600,000 and $900,000.

The Crown sought eight years' incarceration while the defence sought four to five years.

The court imposed a six-year sentence, giving significant weight to the early guilty plea as a mitigating factor equivalent to police cooperation.

The accused received credit for presentence custody of two years, four months, and two weeks, leaving approximately three years, seven months, and two weeks to serve.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation sought access to DVD audio recordings containing intercepted private communications between an FBI undercover operative and two terrorism convicts.

The recordings were subject to a sealing order at trial to protect the operative's identity.

The Court of Appeal granted CBC access on condition that the operative's voice be altered to disguise his identity before any publication or broadcast.

The Crown retained the right to review and approve the altered recordings prior to publication.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of trafficking and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public safety, as well as seeking leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction appeal raised three grounds: erroneous credibility findings, misapprehension of evidence, and an improper adverse inference from the appellant's right to remain silent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were reasonable, the evidence was not misapprehended, and no adverse inference was drawn from the appellant's silence.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found an error in the structure of the sentence and modified it to three years on the trafficking offence and one year on the weapons offence, both concurrent, less time served of 19.5 months.

The appellant was charged with importing heroin and conspiracy to import heroin.

She was acquitted on the importing charge but convicted on the conspiracy charge and sentenced to six years imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the acquittal on the importing charge was irreconcilably inconsistent with the conviction on the conspiracy charge, rendering the conspiracy conviction unreasonable.

Alternatively, she argued the trial judge erred in sentencing by treating her as a party to the importing charge on which she was acquitted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

On appeal from convictions for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession, the appellants challenged the trial judge's findings.

The appellants, common law spouses, were convicted of two counts of possession of oxycodone and Percocet for trafficking purposes, and one count of simple possession of methadone.

The trial judge found both appellants in joint possession and guilty of trafficking.

The appellants appealed on grounds including misuse of prejudicial evidence regarding child endangerment and lack of mens rea.

The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals, finding the trial judge improperly admitted and relied upon evidence of child endangerment to infer trafficking intent, and that there was insufficient evidence of the mens rea required for the respondent's conviction.

The appellants, Vice Media Canada Inc. and journalist Ben Makuch, appealed the dismissal of their application to quash a production order requiring them to produce documents relating to their communications with Farah Shirdon, a Canadian resident who had joined ISIS and was charged with terrorism offences.

The appellants also sought to unseal the affidavit supporting the production order and challenged a non-publication order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the production order, finding that the Garofoli standard of review applied and that the issuing judge reasonably balanced the competing interests of law enforcement and freedom of the press.

The court allowed the appeal in part regarding the sealing order, directing that most material be unsealed with limited redactions.

The court also addressed the non-publication order, finding it a valid alternative to sealing but noting that certain portions of the affidavit may not require the publication ban.