Sobia Virk

The appellants, Zhang Jian Fan and Jian Ling, appealed their convictions and sentences for large-scale cannabis production offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

They asserted a defence of honest but mistaken belief that their operation was properly licensed.

The trial judge rejected their credibility and found their mistake was one of law, not fact.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellants' belief was not credible and, alternatively, that their mistake was one of law regarding the scope and application of the licences, not a mistake of fact about the existence of a licence.

The Court also upheld the sentences, finding them proportionate, while setting aside victim surcharges.

The accused, an immigration consultant and his IT company, were charged with misrepresentation and counselling misrepresentation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act relating to Syrian refugee sponsorship applications.

At the close of the Crown's case, the accused brought a motion for a directed verdict, arguing there was insufficient evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the Crown had presented circumstantial evidence reasonably capable of supporting inferences of guilt regarding the source of settlement funds and the collection of fees, which must be left to the jury to weigh.

The Crown charged two accused jointly with two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, with the first accused facing an additional count.

At a preliminary inquiry, both accused contested committal, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge and control.

The court applied the test from R v Arcuri, examining circumstantial evidence including extensive police surveillance of hand-to-hand transactions, large quantities of cash and drugs found in a locked apartment, drug paraphernalia, and documentary evidence linking both accused to the premises.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused to trial on the joint possession counts and the first accused on the additional count.

The Crown sought preliminary orders in a sexual assault and sexual interference case involving a 13-year-old complainant.

The court granted orders banning publication of the complainant's name, permitting testimony outside the presence of the accused, and allowing a support worker to be present.

The central issue was whether defence counsel should be permitted to be in the adjacent room during cross-examination.

The court ruled that defence counsel must remain in the courtroom and conduct cross-examination remotely via video link, rather than being present in the adjacent room with the witness.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking following a break-in at a licensed medical marijuana grow operation.

The defendant, employed as a security monitor and cleaner, called 911 to report the break-in and cooperated fully with police.

He claimed he honestly believed the entire operation was authorized under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) based on production licenses displayed at the facility and assurances from his employer.

The Crown argued either that the defendant knew the operation exceeded authorized limits or, alternatively, that any mistaken belief was one of law rather than fact.

The court found the defendant's belief in his immunity from criminal liability was honestly held but constituted a mistake of law, as the licenses authorized only 30 plants while over 1,500 were present.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with assault and uttering a threat to cause death against his wife following an incident on March 23, 2013.

The case turned entirely on credibility, with the complainant and accused providing diametrically opposed accounts of the altercation.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence as implausible and evasive.

The court convicted the accused on both counts after finding that the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

After being found guilty of multiple counts of possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

The court considered the entrapment framework from R. v. Mack and subsequent appellate authority, including R. v. Imoro, which distinguishes between legitimate investigative steps and providing an opportunity to commit an offence without reasonable suspicion.

The court held that the officer’s initial question during a phone call did not provide an opportunity to commit a crime but was merely an investigative step.

Reasonable suspicion crystallized when the accused willingly engaged in drug-related conversation using recognized slang for cocaine quantities.

The subsequent offences were independently committed by the accused and were not the product of police inducement.

The accused was charged with production of marijuana, two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking of marijuana, and theft of electricity, all relating to a grow operation at 20 Boylen Street, Toronto discovered on December 3, 2009.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused's knowledge and control of the premises.

The defence conceded that a grow operation existed and that marijuana was possessed for trafficking purposes, but contested whether the Crown had proven the accused's possession, knowledge, and control.

The court found that the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence, including personal documents in the accused's name found at the premises, utility bills addressed to the accused, and the nature of the grow operation requiring regular attendance, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had joint or constructive possession of and knowledge and control over the premises and the contraband operation.