Sarah Tariq Malik

Giedrius Kesminas was tried on two counts: conspiracy to import cocaine (Count 7) and conspiracy to utter forged documents (Count 11), stemming from "Project Southam." The Crown's case relied heavily on wiretap evidence.

Kesminas denied participation, claiming he only pretended to agree to the cocaine importation scheme.

The court applied the two-step Carter analysis for conspiracy membership, rejecting Kesminas's "pretence" defence and finding him an enthusiastic participant.

Kesminas was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt on Count 7.

However, the court reserved its decision on Count 11 due to a material discrepancy between the indictment's particularization (registering a property in Helen Lauro's name) and the evidence presented (obtaining a mortgage for Hans Lauro), citing the principle from R. v. Saunders that the offence as particularized must be proved.

The appellant, Leonidas Economopoulos, appealed his convictions for drug offences and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing that the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant for his home and car was insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The trial judge had found the affidavit sufficient, despite noted deficiencies, to conclude there were reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, deferring to his review and agreeing that the affidavit met the legal test for ex parte authorizations, as articulated in R. v. Araujo.

The Court also rejected the argument that the trial judge improperly used cross-examination evidence to amplify the grounds for identification.

The appeal was dismissed.

Oliver Kwafo was tried on charges of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The central issue was whether Mr. Kwafo had knowledge of the drugs found hidden in his vehicle.

Despite suspicious circumstances, the Crown failed to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to a key police witness's inability to recall crucial details about the discovery of the drugs.

Consequently, Mr. Kwafo was found not guilty on all three counts.

The Superior Court of Justice considered a constitutional challenge to mandatory minimum sentences under ss. 286.2(2) (receiving material benefit from sexual services provided by a person under 18), 286.3(2) (procuring a person under 18), and 163.1(3) (distributing child pornography) of the Criminal Code.

The applicants, who were found guilty by a jury, argued these mandatory minimums violated s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court, applying the "grossly disproportionate" standard and considering reasonable hypotheticals, found the mandatory minimums for ss. 286.2(2) and 163.1(3) to be unconstitutional and declared them of no force or effect.

The mandatory minimum for s. 286.3(2) had already been declared unconstitutional in a prior decision.

Following their convictions for various prostitution-related offences involving minors, the applicants sought a declaration that sections 286.2(2), 286.3(2), and 286.4 of the Criminal Code were unconstitutional, arguing they violated sections 7 and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding the impugned sections constitutional.

It held that the sections were not arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate under s. 7, and that while s. 286.4 infringed s. 2(b) freedom of expression, it was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The accused was charged with human trafficking and misrepresentation to immigration authorities under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The accused brought a third party records application seeking disclosure of Children's Aid Society records and police records relating to the complainant.

The court determined that the O'Connor regime applied to the CAS records and the Mills regime (section 278) applied to the police records.

The court denied production of the police records as the accused failed to establish they were likely relevant, relying solely on credibility arguments which are insufficient under section 278.3(4).

The court found the CAS records were likely relevant as they were compiled during a joint investigation that led to the charges, and ordered the second stage of the O'Connor test to proceed.