Credit to the team at Supreme Advocacy

Criminal Law: Homicide

Sylvester v. R., 2021 ABCA 312 (40699)
The deceased, the Applicant, and a number of other individuals lived together in a one-bedroom apartment in Calgary. They were all regular users of drugs and alcohol. There was discord among them which included the deceased injuring two of the roommates. The main issue at trial was the identity of the person who struck and killed the deceased with a machete. The Applicant testified it was another person who did it, and another person testified it was the Applicant who did it. The Applicant was convicted of second degree murder, and his conviction appeal dismissed. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Guilty by Default

Fang v. R., 2022 QCCA (40640)
Mr. Fang received a statement of offence under the Québec Act respecting the Réseau de transport métropolitain. He did not enter a plea and a court date was set, for which he was not present and was found guilty by default. The Court of Québec dismissed the application for a revocation of judgment. The Superior Court of Québec dismissed the appeal, ruling it had no merit and was devoid of any chance of success. The Qué. C.A. refused to grant leave to appeal, as it found there was no true question of law. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Sexual Offences

K.C. v. R2022 QCCA 1611 (40572)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual offences against adoptive daughters. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Bail

S.T.R. v. R., 2023 ABCA 95 (40735)
There is a publication ban in case in this case, in the context of bail re a first degree murder charge. “The motion by His Majesty the King to adduce new evidence is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Contempt

George v. R.2023 BCCA 115 (40651)
Mr. George, a member of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, and other protestors blockaded a facility owned by Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. Mr. George played a leadership role. He knew the protest contravened a court ordered injunction against obstructing, impeding and interfering with operations at various locations. Mr. George was convicted of contempt of court and was sentenced to 28 days imprisonment. The B.C.C.A. dismissed an appeal from the sentence. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Experts

Abdulle v. R., 2023 ONCA 23 (40727)
The Applicant and his co-accused both fired shots at Mr. Ahmed and his companions. One of them fired a shot that struck Mr. Ahmed in the neck and he died. The Crown characterized the shooting as a planned and deliberate murder that capped a cycle of escalating violence between the Tandridge Cripz gang and a rival gang. The Applicant submitted it was self-defence. The Crown brought a pre-trial application seeking the admission of evidence of past gang violence and to qualify two police officers to provide expert opinion evidence. The evidence of the prior incidents of violence was a form of prior discreditable conduct and its admission was governed by the test set out in R. v. Handy. The trial judge applied the test set out in Handy and admitted six of the prior incidents of violence. After a trial by judge and jury, the Applicant was convicted of second degree murder. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the conviction appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Mistrials

Umeadi v. R., 2023 ACNL 7 (40714)
The Canada Border Services Agency intercepted a package from Cameroon containing more than 500g of heroin, which was to be delivered to a post box at a “Pak Mail” location in Barrie, Ontario. Barrie police organized a controlled delivery of the package to investigate and apprehend the parties involved. Applicant Chibuzo Umeadi was arrested after he attended the store and picked up the package. Bad luck: while he was in custody, another package, also containing heroin, arrived at the same Pak Mail box. Police seized this second package as well. Mr. Umeadi was charged with four offences in relation to the packages. At trial, the manager of the Pak Mail store testified she had received phone calls and visits by men looking for the second package. The manager had informed the police about these men. At the end of her examination-in-chief, the parties discovered the police notes concerning the manager’s communication about these men had not been provided to Crown and defence counsel. Mr. Umeadi applied for a mistrial, arguing his right to full answer and defence had been prejudiced. The trial judge dismissed the application but granted other relief, including: an adjournment prior to the defence cross-examination; permitting the Crown to withdraw a charge relating to the second package; permitting the parties to amend an agreed statement of facts; and providing a limiting instruction to the jury. The trial continued, and Mr. Umeadi was ultimately convicted on all three remaining charges. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Narcotics

Narinesingh v. R.2021 QCCA 396 (40721)
Ms. Narinesingh, was arrested at the Dorval Airport on her return from Africa when customs officers found 7.7 kg of heroin concealed in her luggage. The Crown preferred an indictment containing one count of importing and one count of possessing, for the purposes, a drug included in Schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, specifically heroin, as opposed to a “controlled substance”. The trial judge held the Crown had to show beyond a reasonable doubt the Applicant had subjective knowledge of the presence of heroin. He instructed the jury the Applicant’s recklessness and wilful blindness could be relied on as a basis for such knowledge. The jury convicted the Applicant of the charges. The Qué. C.A. unanimously dismissed the appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: NCR

Alexander v. Procureur général de l’Ontario, et al., 2023 ONCA 176 (40723)
The Applicant was charged with arson, and disregard for human life. She was found not criminally responsible. Her treating psychiatrist testified her mental state is very fragile, she is at high risk of decompensation and remains a significant threat to the public. The Applicant appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), ordering she continue to be detained at the Women’s General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and providing the person in charge may, in his or her discretion, permit the Applicant hospital and grounds privileges, escorted by staff, and to enter the community, escorted by staff. The Ont. C.A. dismissed her appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Pre-Sentence Custody Credit

Diamond Sky Caribou v. R., 2022 MBCA 95 (40618)
After the Applicant was convicted by jury of manslaughter, the trial judge in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba imposed a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody at a rate of 1.5:1. At the sentencing hearing, the Applicant filed a motion asserting the cap on the credit for pre-sentence custody at 1.5:1 set out in s. 719(3) and (3.1) of the Criminal Code should be struck down for violating s. 7 of the Charter, which the trial judge dismissed. He found it unnecessary to resort to a Charter remedy as the issue raised by the Applicant could be addressed as part of the sentencing process. In the alternative, he concluded the limitation in those provisions does not violate s. 7. On appeal, the Applicant argued the trial judge erred in failing to consider the constitutional challenge, in alternatively finding the provisions did not infringe s. 7, and in imposing a sentence that was harsh and excessive. The Man. C.A. unanimously granted the application for leave to appeal the sentence, but dismissed the Applicant’s sentence appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law/Securities: Guilty Plea Withdrawal

Charest, et al. v. Autorité des Marchés Financiers, 2022 QCCA (40617)
The Applicants, Mr. Charest and Mr. Desroches, established 2919-8050 Québec inc. in 2010 to solicit investments to take control of Global Immune Technologies (GIMU), a public company at the development stage operating in the United States in the field of home distribution of food products. The Applicants consulted a lawyer to find out their obligations in relation to the Québec Securities Act. The lawyer allegedly told them verbally they could look for investors through a private investment club without completing any other formalities. The Applicants subsequently solicited potential investors. They created a second company, 9279-7445 Québec inc. They solicited new investors along with their lawyer. The purpose was allegedly to create a group of investors, still with a view to taking control of GIMU. 24 investors were recruited through shareholdings in the two companies created by the Applicants. The total investment amount was $431,200. The Applicants informed all the shareholders the project had failed and their shares had no tangible value. The Autorité des marchés financiers began investigating the Applicants’ conduct. It served statements of offence on the Applicants. The Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal ordered the Applicants to cease transactions in securities and to cease acting as advisers. The Applicants admitted their guilt on 171 counts. The Tribunal then required the parties to make submissions on sentencing. Following numerous postponements resulting mainly from the Applicants’ actions. The Applicants were sentenced by the Court of Québec to fines and an 18-month term of imprisonment. The Applicants served and filed an amended notice of appeal, seeking to withdraw their guilty pleas. The Superior Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time to seek the withdrawal of the guilty pleas and dismissed the appeal from the sentence. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the motion for leave to appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the applicants’ reply is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Criminal Law: Sexual Assault

A. v. R., 2023 NWTCA 3 (40761)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of a sexual assault conviction. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Scroll to Top