Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a murder and attempted murder conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence supported aiding and abetting and the wilful blindness instruction was proper.
The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused posted the intimate images to FetLife because there was no forensic or account evidence linking the Accused to the FetLife account, the photographic exhibits were blurred and non‑identifying, and the complainant's testimony contained material inconsistencies and indications of possible motive to fabricate; those deficiencies left reasonable doubt as to identity and publication by the Accused and required acquittal.
Source excerpt
The extradition judge erred in law by treating the ROC as a statement of evidence and drawing adverse inferences from its omissions, thereby conducting substantive weighing beyond the limited role permitted; the judge was also unreasonable in failing to accept reasonable inferences available from the ROC (possession of MIMM login credentials and Bitcoin tracing to exchange accounts opened in the respondent's name), and the discharge was set aside and committal ordered.
Source excerpt
On the totality of interlocking circumstantial evidence — DNA from the accused on restraint items central to the crime, phone metadata and images showing detailed reconnaissance and contemporaneous photographs of the victim, surveillance consistent with the accused's appearance and gait, and reliable eyewitness accounts — the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused planned, directed and participated in the home invasion and kidnapping; hypothetical prior‑touch explanations were speculative and unreasonable in context.
Source excerpt
The Cellebrite extractions were admissible and, when tested against extensive extrinsic corroborative evidence (device activity gaps and unlock timestamps, GPS coordinates resolving to the accused's residence, Facebook and banking data, seizure circumstances, photos matching residence), the court accepted the reports without expert opinion; on that basis identity, jurisdiction and temporal elements were proven and the Crown established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed, accessed, transmitted/made available CSAEM and engaged in grooming/luring conduct, warranting convictions…
Source excerpt
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Justine Cairns-Cushman’s conviction for drug trafficking and refused to reduce her sentence based on post-sentence rehabilitation.
Applying the law on circumstantial evidence and constructive possession, the Crown failed to exclude reasonable alternative inferences because the accused was a sporadic occupant of a multi‑person residence, multiple others had access to the locations where drugs and paraphernalia were found, and there was insufficient evidence of the requisite knowledge and control to prove constructive possession and intent to traffic beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore acquittal was required.
Source excerpt
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Matthew Armstrong’s appeal from robbery convictions, holding the verdict was reasonable and the electronic messages were properly assessed.
The trial judge reasonably inferred specific intent as to one targeted witness from the appellant's recorded statements and the circumstantial evidence; the divergent verdicts were rationally reconcilable because the evidentiary cogency of intent differed between the two counts, therefore the conviction must be upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
Viewing the circumstantial evidence as a whole, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of and some measure of control over the drugs and firearm because alternative reasonable inferences existed (including that they had just arrived or that another occupant had control), items were not clearly in plain view or linked to the accused, and forensic or contextual evidence (tenancy, surveillance, keys, fingerprints, personal effects) was absent; therefore guilt was not the only reasonable inference and the accused must be acquitted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
