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
Oral s. 724 ruling on fraud counts: the court fixed sentencing facts and held the Ministry was defrauded of about $335,000 across the counts.
The new forensic handwriting reports were admissible fresh evidence: they were relevant and cogent as they could reasonably have raised a reasonable doubt on the central issue of authorship of the second letter, and the circumstances did not justify excluding them for lack of due diligence; therefore the convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered (acquittal was not appropriate).
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the alleged evidentiary errors were not material to the trial judge's credibility and factual findings, the judge did not commit the specific errors alleged regarding motive or unequal scrutiny, and the sentencing judge properly applied sentencing principles so the 18‑month custodial sentence is fit and not demonstrably unfit.
Source excerpt
Sapna Kapoor was sentenced to 179 days in custody and three years’ probation for attempting to use a forged passport application and making a false statement to a passport officer.
The Court held there was no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings that the appellant was wilfully blind to the fraudulent scheme and that his testimony was not credible; the trial judge permissibly relied on the totality of conduct across accounts to infer mens rea, the similar fact evidence did not render the reasons inadequate, and the sentencing judge properly applied restraint and proportionality such that the 18-month custody sentence with 3 years probation and a restitution order was not demonstrably unfit.
Source excerpt
The trial judge did not err in admitting the deceased bank employee's preliminary inquiry testimony under s.715(1); the residual discretion to exclude was properly exercised and a strong Vetrovec warning adequately mitigated the absence of live cross-examination. The jury charge, viewed in the context of the entire trial including counsel addresses and the evidence, was adequate despite stylistic and repetitive defects and did not render the verdict unreasonable. The appeal is dismissed and convictions are affirmed.
Source excerpt
The Court held the trial judge properly instructed on and applied the law: he lawfully rejected the appellant's explanation as inherently improbable, correctly applied the doctrine of recent possession to infer knowledge of theft, and did not improperly rely on the police statement; therefore the convictions and three-year global sentence were upheld.
Source excerpt
The sentencing judge lawfully applied the parity principle and gave sufficient reasons in context of the record, noting material differences between offenders (restoration and rehabilitation) and the appellant's greater participation, and the nine-month concurrent sentence was fit and properly imposed.
Source excerpt
The trial judge conducted a comprehensive plea inquiry and made factual findings that the appellant's pleas were voluntary and informed; those findings are supported by the record and not open to appellate intervention. The sentencing judge properly exercised discretion and lawfully imposed a conditional sentence applying the law in effect when the offences occurred; the sentence is upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed the conviction appeal because the jury charge, read as a whole, adequately explained the burden and standard of proof and the evidence established an uninterrupted causal nexus between the appellant's forging and faxing of prescriptions and pharmacists filling them so the innocent agent doctrine applied; the Court dismissed the sentence appeal because 42 months was within a fit range given the seriousness, planning and breach of trust, a conditional sentence was not open and parity with the co‑offender was not required due to significant differences in culpability and miti…
Source excerpt
Explore more
