Sayeh Hassan

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Malcolm Copeland’s appeal from his conviction for second degree murder.

The appeal centered on whether the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the partial defence of provocation.

The court held that there was no air of reality to the defence of provocation, as the evidence did not support that Copeland lost self-control and acted on the sudden before his passion could cool.

The court found that the evidence was consistent with self-defence, not provocation, and that the trial judge properly applied the law.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, child luring, and child pornography offences, appealed three rulings from his trial.

He challenged the trial judge's decision to admit child pornography evidence despite a s. 8 Charter breach regarding the search warrant's scope, her refusal to allow cross-examination of the affiant (Det. Pelletier) on his mental health and disclose his medical records, and the excusal of another officer (Officer D.G.) from testifying.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis, finding no error in balancing the Grant factors.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's discretionary decisions regarding cross-examination and disclosure, noting the appellant's failure to lay a proper evidentiary foundation for his Charter applications.

Randy Hillier, a former Member of Provincial Parliament, challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's COVID-19 Gathering Restrictions (O. Reg. 82/20 and O. Reg 265/21), arguing they violated his Charter right to peaceful assembly under s. 2(c).

He faced charges for attending political protest rallies during the spring 2021 lockdown.

While Ontario conceded the s. 2(c) infringement, it argued the restrictions were justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court, applying the Oakes test and relying on the precedent set by Ontario (Attorney General) v. Trinity Bible Chapel, found that the restrictions served a pressing and substantial objective (reducing COVID-19 transmission and protecting the healthcare system), were rationally connected to that objective, minimally impaired Charter rights given the urgent and uncertain circumstances, and were proportionate.

The court emphasized the application of the precautionary principle in public health emergencies.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to exclude evidence obtained during a border search, finding that a border services officer violated the respondent's ss. 7 and 10 Charter rights.

The trial judge determined that the officer had formed a particularized suspicion, engaging the respondent's Charter rights, and applied the R. v. Grant test to exclude the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, deferring to the trial judge's fact-driven findings, particularly on the officer's credibility, and finding no reversible error in the s. 24(2) analysis.

The applicants brought an application challenging the constitutionality of Ontario's COVID-19 proof of vaccination requirement (Ont.

Reg. 364/20) under sections 2(a), 7, and 15 of the Charter.

The applicants argued that the regulation, which required patrons to provide proof of vaccination to enter certain businesses, violated their freedom of religion, right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and equality rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no Charter contraventions.

The court held that the regulation did not interfere with the applicants' religious beliefs, did not compel medical treatment or engage the right to security of the person, and did not discriminate based on religion or disability.

The applicants challenged the federal government's COVID-19 border measures for returning international air travellers, including the requirement to quarantine in a government-approved accommodation (GAA) or designated quarantine facility (DQF) while awaiting a Day 1 COVID-19 test result.

The applicants argued the measures violated their Charter rights, were ultra vires the Quarantine Act, and encroached on provincial jurisdiction.

The Federal Court dismissed the applications, finding no Charter violations except for two specific instances involving one applicant whose section 9 and 10(b) rights were breached during her transfer to a DQF.

The Court held the measures were a reasonable exercise of delegated authority under the Quarantine Act and within the federal government's jurisdiction over quarantine.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend the operation of an Order-in-Council requiring air travellers entering Canada to undergo mandatory quarantine at a government-authorized accommodation or designated quarantine facility while awaiting COVID-19 test results.

The applicants challenged the measures under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, arguing they constituted arbitrary detention and were not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice since travellers arriving by land or who tested positive were permitted to quarantine at home.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicants raised a serious issue regarding arbitrariness, they failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience heavily favored maintaining the public health measures, which were based on the precautionary principle and aimed to prevent the spread of new, highly transmissible COVID-19 variants.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondents, a church and its elders, for breaching a court order that restrained them from holding gatherings of more than 10 persons in contravention of COVID-19 regulations.

The respondents did not oppose the motion.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the respondents had notice of it, and they intentionally breached it by holding a service with approximately 225 people.

All respondents were found in contempt, and the matter was adjourned for sentencing.

This is a sentencing decision for Sakia Mojadiddi, who pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000, defrauding 47 victims of over $1 million over a decade.

The fraud involved falsely promising refugee sponsorship through a charitable organization, exploiting vulnerable individuals and abusing a position of trust.

The Crown sought 4-4.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year prohibition on managing others' property, restitution of $946,083.99, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $1,077,584.00, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale frauds, finding the sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's blameworthiness, while also considering mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, age, and health, but not reducing the sentence further due to COVID-19 given measures in federal institutions.

The appellant was convicted of causing unnecessary suffering and abandoning an animal in distress after dumping a live puppy in a garbage bin.

He appealed his conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his trial lawyer failed to properly prepare him and his witnesses, compromised their relationship, and misunderstood the law.

He also sought an extension of time to appeal his sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application for an extension of time, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court also dismissed the conviction appeal, concluding the appellant failed to establish the material facts underlying his claims of ineffective assistance and that trial counsel's strategic decisions fell within the standard of reasonable professional judgment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, engaging in stereotypical reasoning, and failing to appreciate his motive theory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions that the complainant did not consent and was incapable of consenting were sound and entitled to deference.

The offender was convicted of ten counts of fraud and one count of defrauding the public, involving the sale of fictitious shares in gold mining companies to unsophisticated investors.

The total fraud exceeded $1.1 million.

The court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment, finding that the principles of denunciation and deterrence required a significant penitentiary term given the magnitude, duration, and devastating impact of the fraud on vulnerable victims.

The court also ordered full restitution of $1,100,799 and imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount.

Following his conviction for multiple counts of fraud, the accused applied to reopen his trial prior to sentencing to introduce new evidence.

The proposed evidence was his passport, which contained a visa stamp he claimed supported his alibi that he was in St. Kitts when some of the fraudulent transactions occurred.

The court applied the Palmer test for the admission of fresh evidence and dismissed the application.

The court found that the evidence failed to meet the due diligence requirement and, more importantly, lacked sufficient importance, as the visa stamp did not prove the accused's physical presence in St. Kitts at the relevant times and would not have affected the trial's outcome or the court's adverse credibility findings against him.

Sentencing of four offenders convicted of multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, money laundering, and committing offences for a criminal organization.

The offenders orchestrated a sophisticated, multi-million dollar fraud scheme targeting the Canada Small Business Financing Program and several major banks using sham construction companies.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from 14 months to 8 years, along with significant restitution orders and fines in lieu of forfeiture.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges alleging abuse by a stepfather against two stepsons over many years in the family home.

The court treated the case as turning on credibility and reliability, considered the principles governing delayed disclosure, prior inconsistent or incomplete accounts, and the effect of extensive criminal records involving dishonesty on witness assessment.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court held the complainants' evidence did not provide a basis to reject the accused's denials and that reasonable doubt remained.

All counts were dismissed.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion before a case conference to set aside a separation agreement on an interim basis.

The agreement provided for equal parenting time and no child support.

The applicant alleged she signed under duress and that the agreement was unconscionable.

The respondent father argued the agreement was fair and maximized parenting time.

The court found urgency but declined to set aside the agreement on an interim basis, noting that the conflicting affidavit evidence could not be resolved without a trial and that the current equal parenting schedule provided stability and was in the children's best interests.

The defendants were charged with multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, laundering proceeds of crime, and committing offences for a criminal organization in relation to a scheme to fraudulently obtain Canada Small Business Financing Program loans from various banks.

The Crown alleged that the defendants used sham corporations, forged financial documents, and inflated or fabricated invoices for leasehold improvements and equipment to deceive the banks into advancing loan funds, which were then laundered among the defendants.

The court found that Marshall Kazman and Gad Levy orchestrated the scheme and were guilty of fraud, money laundering, and the criminal organization offence.

Ali Vaez Tehrani and Madjid Vaez Tehrani were found guilty of fraud on specific counts but acquitted of the criminal organization charge.

Armand Levy, Ekaterina Chapkina, and Kamyar Ghatan were acquitted of all charges.

The appellant landlord was convicted of criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and mischief endangering life after a fatal fire at his rental property.

The property lacked required smoke alarms and violated the Fire Code.

On appeal, the appellant argued his conduct was not the legal cause of the tenant's death, as the tenant stayed in his room to fight the fire.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the appellant's failure to install required fire safety systems was a significant contributing cause of the death.

The accused were jointly tried for fraud over $5,000 arising from a scheme using a stolen and forged TD bank draft to obtain approximately $1.9 million in gold bullion from a Montreal dealer.

The Crown’s case was largely circumstantial and relied on telephone records, cell tower data, and evidence concerning the acquisition and subsequent disposition of Perth Mint gold bars.

The trial judge assessed the evidence under the principles governing circumstantial cases and the framework in R. v. W. (D.).

The court rejected the explanations advanced by the accused and concluded that they had acted together to present the fraudulent draft, obtain the gold, and distribute or conceal it afterward.

The appellant appealed a restitution order imposed by the sentencing judge on his own motion without advance notice.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the appellant's ability to pay, noting a lack of evidence regarding his expenses and income.

Given that the appellant had already served his conditional sentence and probation, and had paid over $10,000 in restitution despite only receiving $5,000 from the fraud, the appeal was allowed and the restitution order was reduced to the amount already paid.