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
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from conviction for importing heroin, upholding the trial judge’s credibility findings and rejection of the defence.
The trial judge's adverse credibility findings and inferences from the totality of circumstantial evidence were open on the record; the receipt in Padilla's name did not exculpate the appellant but corroborated joint involvement; there was no impermissible burden shift; the Browne v. Dunn misapplication was harmless in context; applying s.686(1)(b)(iii) the conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court accepted a joint submission and sentenced Zacchary Marcus Scott Hecock to 10 years concurrent custody for methamphetamine importation and trafficking, with ancillary orders.
The Court upheld the conviction because the trial judge gave adequate reasons that, taken together (sophistication of the import scheme, implausibility and inconsistency of the appellant's accounts, accessible nature of appliances in Canada), supported the inference that the appellant knowingly participated in the importation; Villaroman was applied implicitly and disbelief of the appellant did not amount to reversing the burden.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge applied the correct subjective test for wilful blindness and alternatively made a finding of actual knowledge supported by powerful evidence (quantity and value of drugs, concealment in suitcases packed by the appellant, appellant's fingerprint); any alleged error on wilful blindness would be immaterial in light of the alternative finding of actual knowledge, and the other complained-of errors did not affect the verdict.
Source excerpt
The appeals are dismissed because a properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude on the circumstantial evidence that the appellants aided the importation (the package was not factually complete until in possession of the ultimate domestic recipient, Donovan Gordon) and that knowledge could be established directly or by wilful blindness; therefore the convictions and sentences are upheld.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed because the trial judge repeatedly stated the conclusion as 'knew or was wilfully blind' and there was no air of reality for wilful blindness; those references indicate the judge may not have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of actual knowledge. The curative proviso cannot be applied because the error was not trivial and the evidence was not overwhelming. The conviction is set aside and a new trial is ordered.
Source excerpt
The court sentenced Rajkumar Subramaniam to eight years for importing 14.79 kg of methamphetamine and six concurrent years for possession for trafficking.
Sentencing decision for Azra Demirovic, convicted of importing and possessing heroin for trafficking. The court imposed concurrent custodial sentences and ancillary orders.
Sentencing for importing 12.8 kg of methamphetamine was set at eight years, with enhanced credit for pre-trial custody and ancillary orders.
Explore more
