Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The victim, Qaisar Saleem, who worked for Pizza Pizza, was instructed to deliver a pizza and chicken wings to an apartment in Toronto, from an order received at 1:06 a.m. on June 28, 2000. He arrived at the building between 1:35 and 1:45 a.m., took the elevator, and walked to the apartment at the end of the hallway beside the stairwell. The first assailant emerged from the stairwell holding a pistol. He was described as a black man and with a cloth over his face. The victim could only see his eyes and could not identify him or any of the other assailants. A second man then emerged from the stairwell, also armed and masked. Three more masked men then emerged, but without weapons.
The last three assailants grabbed the victim’s arms, took the food from him and his money and receipts from his pockets. Two of them took him into the stairwell where they bound his hands and mouth and removed his wallet and some change from his pockets.

The police found chicken bones and five Pizza Pizza receipts in the stairwell at about 4:00 a.m. that morning. Three fingerprints belonging to the Respondent were found on the receipt for the delivery to the building. A fourth print belonged to another man who was charged as a young offender.

The Respondent turned himself in to the police on August 7, 2000 in response to an outstanding warrant for robbery. He spoke to a lawyer between the time he was charged with the first robbery, the June 28th, and a second robbery, the July 5th. Before the July 5 counts were severed, the challenge for cause issue was raised with the trial judge. Defence counsel requested that the following question be put to prospective jurors on the challenge for cause:

“Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice or partiality be affected by the fact that the accused person is a black man charged with robbing white and East Indian persons?"

The Respondent was convicted of robbery, using an imitation firearm and wearing a disguise, in connection with the robbery of a pizza deliveryman on June 28, 2000. The Respondent asked to challenge the jury for cause, based on the fact that he was black and the victim was East Indian. The trial judge allowed the jury members to be canvassed on the basis that the Respondent was black, but would not allow a question addressing the interracial nature of the crime. On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. Laskin J.A. dissenting would have dismissed the conviction appeal on the basis that the trial judge did not err in refusing to permit a question, which referred to the race of the victim during the challenge for cause of prospective jurors.