Xenia Proestos

The accused was charged with knowingly participating in or contributing to the activities of a terrorist group (Atomwaffen Division/National Socialist Order) for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity, contrary to section 83.18(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proved that the accused completed an application to join the terrorist organization, pledging loyalty and offering his skills as a mechanic and military training.

The court found that the accused knew AWD/NSO was a terrorist organization, participated in its activities by offering his skills, and did so for the purpose of enhancing the terrorist group's ability to carry out terrorist activity.

The accused was found guilty.

This decision concerns a motion for a directed verdict in a terrorism prosecution under section 83.18(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Seth Bertrand, was alleged to have participated in or contributed to the activities of the Atomwaffen Division (AWD), a listed terrorist group, for the purpose of enhancing its ability to facilitate or carry out terrorist activity.

The court found that there was some evidence on each essential element of the offence, including the accused’s application to join AWD, his statements, and his actions, such that a properly instructed jury could convict.

The motion for a directed verdict was dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of various drug-related offences following a large-scale police investigation involving wiretaps, tracking warrants, and search warrants.

They appealed their convictions, arguing the application judge erred in dismissing their pre-trial Garofoli applications challenging the constitutionality of the searches and interceptions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the application judge's assessment of the wiretap authorizations, the reliance on confidential informants, the refusal to excise certain information from the warrants, and the determinations regarding reasonable expectations of privacy in condominium units and common areas.

The appellant, George Nnane, appealed his convictions for two counts of fraud, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel's performance fell below the standard of reasonable professional judgment, specifically by failing to adequately cross-examine a key witness, projecting disbelief of the appellant's testimony during examination-in-chief, and delivering an ineffective jury address.

Despite a strong Crown case, the court concluded that the cumulative effect of counsel's conduct undermined the fairness of the trial.

The conviction appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The sentence appeal was not addressed.

The appellant, convicted of drug trafficking and firearm offences, appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's summary dismissal of a motion to re-open a Garofoli application, arguing the wrong test was applied and the affiant officer's credibility was in question.

The sentence appeal argued the judge "jumped" the Crown's position without notice and misapprehended his criminal record, leading to an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding that while the trial judge applied the wrong test for summary dismissal, the motion was substantively heard on its merits.

The court also found that the sentencing errors did not impact the sentence, which was fit given the gravity of the offences, the appellant's high-level role in a commercial drug operation, and his extensive criminal record.

The appellant, Rayon Williams, appealed his convictions for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, raising three grounds: errors in finding no ss. 9 and 8 Charter breaches regarding his arrest and vehicle search, and an error in jury instruction concerning sunglasses found with the drugs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly determined reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and search based on corroborated confidential informant information and police investigation.

The court also found no error in the jury instruction, as the sunglasses issue was not central and lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued supplementary reasons to its judgment, addressing the disposition and sentence after setting aside the appellant's conviction for possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.

Given the appellant had served her original sentence and demonstrated rehabilitation, the court accepted a joint submission to dismiss the appeal, substitute a verdict of guilty for simple possession of oxycodone, and impose an absolute discharge effective from the original sentencing date.

The appellant was convicted of possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in allowing a police officer to give an opinion on the ultimate issue of trafficking and in instructing the jury not to speculate about a missing witness.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in permitting the expert opinion on the ultimate issue, as it was not necessary and risked the jury accepting it without critical consideration of the evidence, particularly the absence of evidence on dosages and consumption rates.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding the error was not harmless.

The conviction was set aside, and the court requested submissions on substituting a conviction for simple possession and an appropriate sentence.

Mr. Hoang was sentenced following convictions for five counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking (heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil, cocaine), two counts of possession of proceeds of crime, and two counts of unsafe storage of a firearm and ammunition.

The court considered aggravating factors including the large quantities of highly toxic opioids, the presence of a firearm, and admitted prior uncharged trafficking offences.

Mitigating factors included his first-time offender status and pro-social network.

The court imposed an 18-year global sentence for the most serious trafficking offences, with other sentences running concurrently, and ordered a half-parole eligibility delay, forfeiture of cash and vehicle, a fine, DNA sample, and firearms prohibition.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and unsafe storage of a firearm.

Police surveillance and searches of the accused's vehicles and home revealed large quantities of narcotics, including heroin, cocaine, and carfentanil, hidden in a secret vehicle compartment and other containers, along with over $250,000 in cash and a loaded shotgun.

The accused claimed to be a mere delivery person unaware of the narcotics or the firearm.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as fabricated, finding overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his central role in a wholesale trafficking operation.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except three drug possession counts related to untested substances found in his home.

The applicant, charged with multiple drug and firearms offences, brought a Charter application under s. 8 and 24(2) to set aside a General Warrant and exclude evidence obtained from his vehicle and residence.

He argued the General Warrant lacked reasonable grounds to believe 'information' would be found in his vehicle, and that warrantless pole camera surveillance of his home violated his rights.

The court found the Information to Obtain established reasonable grounds for the General Warrant, as real evidence like controlled substances constitutes 'information'.

The court also held the pole camera surveillance did not violate s. 8 as it captured only the exterior of the home visible to the public.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, Shauvonne Young, appealed her conviction for importing cocaine.

The central issue was the admissibility of a hearsay statement made by her deceased father, who allegedly confessed to arranging the drug importation without her knowledge.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in excluding the statement, either under the declaration against penal interest exception or the principled approach to hearsay, particularly considering the relaxed standard for defence evidence.

The exclusion of this critical evidence led to a miscarriage of justice.

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

The appellants were convicted of importing cocaine after returning from vacation in St. Lucia with 1.4 kilograms of cocaine each.

They appealed their convictions on the basis that the trial judge misapplied the burden of proof regarding the defence of duress and erroneously required corroboration of the evidence.

The appellants argued duress was the only defence at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge made a misstatement regarding the burden of proof, this was a simple error that did not affect the outcome when the reasons were read as a whole.

The defence failed because the trial judge did not believe the evidence of the testifying appellant and found no reasonable doubt regarding the threats and assaults, and further found that the appellants had a safe avenue of escape once within Canadian jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed his convictions by judge alone on three charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine, MDMA, and ketamine.

The trial judge found that the Crown had proven the appellant had the requisite knowledge and control of the drugs found in an apartment.

The appellant challenged the credibility of police officers' testimony regarding surveillance observations and the trial judge's reliance on certain facts.

The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted by jury of attempting to knowingly participate in or contribute to the activities of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group, and counselling an undercover police officer to do the same.

The trial judge imposed consecutive sentences of five years on each count, resulting in a total sentence of 9 years and 7.5 months with credit for presentence custody.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the conviction grounds and upholding the sentence as fit and appropriate for terrorist offences.

The accused appealed his fraud conviction, arguing that the trial judge wrongly admitted non-expert opinion evidence.

The Court held that the appellate court properly applied the curative proviso even though it was not explicitly named in the Crown's submissions, because the substance of the point was argued.

It concluded no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The conviction was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial on charges of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

The evidence included a three-day surveillance of a residence in Pickering, culminating in the execution of a search warrant that yielded significant quantities of cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, cutting agent, and a replica firearm from a basement bedroom nightstand, as well as cocaine from a Mercedes registered to the accused.

The defence challenged committal on the basis that the Crown had failed to establish constructive possession of either the drugs in the residence or the vehicle.

The court found that while the accused had a clear connection to the residence and was the registered owner of the vehicle, the evidence did not establish knowledge of or control over the drugs.

The court rejected the Crown's inferences as speculative and unsupported by an adequate evidentiary foundation, particularly the process of elimination argument regarding bedroom occupancy.

The accused was discharged on all counts.

The offender was convicted of taking two individuals hostage in Somalia for 15 months.

He acted as the translator and negotiator for the hostage-takers, demanding a ransom and threatening to kill the hostages.

The hostages were held in deplorable conditions and one was repeatedly physically and sexually assaulted.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 15 years in prison, less credit for pre-sentence custody on a 2:1 basis.

The appellant, a tax return preparer, was convicted of fraud over $5,000 for filing false claims of charitable donations on behalf of his clients to a registered charity called Tractors for Daily Bread.

The appellant claimed he believed the donations were valid and had relied on the charity's director to verify them.

He was sentenced to 30 months in custody.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of non-expert opinion evidence from a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency investigator, the trial judge's instruction on mens rea, and the instruction on prior inconsistent statements.

The majority dismissed the conviction appeal and sentence appeal, while the dissent would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of significant fraud involving the preparation of fraudulent tax returns for 241 taxpayers claiming non-existent business losses to obtain tax refunds from the Canada Revenue Agency.

The fraud resulted in wrongful federal tax refunds exceeding $2.7 million, with the appellant receiving over $149,000 for his role.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, raising numerous grounds of appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no errors in the trial judge's handling of search warrant issues, Charter rights claims, jury charge, or sentencing.