Yoni S. Rahamim

Yolanda Meecham was charged with seven counts, including possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of ammunition in violation of s. 109 prohibition orders.

The trial focused on whether she had constructive or joint possession of the drugs and ammunition found in her residence, which was also used by Thiago Machado, an admitted drug dealer.

The court found Meecham's explanations for her knowledge and involvement not credible, particularly regarding a large sum of cash and incriminating intercepted phone calls.

She was found guilty on the four drug trafficking counts, as her direct involvement in arranging drug deals and her knowledge of Machado's activities were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, she was acquitted on the three ammunition counts due to insufficient evidence proving her knowledge of the ammunition beyond a reasonable doubt.

During a murder trial, the accused sought to exclude an utterance made to a police officer at the scene and a videotaped statement made at the police station.

The court held that the utterance at the scene was voluntary and not the product of a detention, as the officer's question was a general inquiry.

However, the court excluded the videotaped statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police breached the accused's s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights by deliberately failing to advise him that his jeopardy had increased to manslaughter following the victim's death.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and unlawful confinement against his daughter when she was under 16 years of age.

The sole ground of appeal was that the trial judge provided insufficient reasons for meaningful appellate review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons were brief, they were sufficiently clear to demonstrate why the conviction was reached.

The trial judge properly assessed credibility and reliability of witnesses, accepted the complainant's evidence regarding the April 16, 2013 offences, and correctly applied the W.(D.) analysis to reject the appellant's denial and defence evidence.

Anthony Birch and Lance Richardson were charged with multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, assault causing bodily harm, and threatening to cause death, stemming from an incident in Baycrest Park.

Birch was also charged with wearing a disguise.

The victims, Floryna Balagbag and Andre Pal, were robbed, assaulted, and threatened at gunpoint and knifepoint.

Both accused testified in their own defence, presenting alibis that the court found lacked credibility.

The court assessed the identification evidence from the victims and circumstantial evidence, including items found with Birch and his inconsistent statements to police.

The court rejected the defence's evidence and found both accused guilty on all counts, relying on the victims' descriptions, photo lineup identification, and the compelling circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sought leave to appeal his sentence of 22 months imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant raised issues regarding DNA testing of the complainant's underwear and challenged the trial judge's credibility findings regarding his alibi.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's detailed reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence.

On sentencing, the Court found the trial judge erred in principle by treating the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor, but concluded the error did not justify a lesser sentence given the victim's young age, the breach of trust, the serious impact on the victim, and the appellant's prior criminal record.

This criminal trial concerned a large-scale drug trafficking operation, 'Project Odyssey,' which led to the seizure of significant quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine, and GHB.

Six defendants were arraigned, with one passing away during the trial.

The court addressed preliminary motions regarding confidential informant privilege and a stay of proceedings based on alleged police misconduct, both of which were dismissed.

The core issues at trial involved proving possession, knowledge, and intent for trafficking and importing charges, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and the Supreme Court's guidance on circumstantial evidence from *R. v. Villaroman*.

Ultimately, four defendants were convicted of trafficking, while one was fully acquitted.

Importing charges against two defendants were dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a minor complainant.

The Crown sought to introduce similar fact evidence from two additional witnesses (sisters of the complainant) alleging similar sexual misconduct by the accused.

The trial judge conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the similar fact evidence under the established legal framework.

The court found that while there were similarities in the conduct alleged by all three witnesses, the potential for collusion, combined with material inconsistencies in the evidence and credibility concerns, meant that the probative value of the similar fact evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The similar fact evidence was therefore excluded from trial.