Case information

Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Criminal law — Right to liberty — Right to equality —Discrimination based on mental disability — Discrimination based on gender — Discrimination based on marital status — Presumption of innocence — Right to a fair hearing — Guilt by association — Possession of property obtained by crime — Participation in activities of criminal organization — Competency of counsel — Sufficiency of evidence — Whether s. 354 of the Criminal Code violates ss. 7, 11(d) or 15 of the Charter by creating a de facto absolute liability offence or by convicting through guilt by association or by discriminating against women —Whether portions of s. 467.11 of the Criminal Code violate s. 7 of the Charter on the basis of over breath and being void for vagueness — Whether the right to competent counsel was violated at trial and in the Court of Appeal in breach of ss. 7, 11 (d) and 15 of the Charter based on gender and mental disability — Whether convictions were based on palpable misapprehension of facts or findings with no evidence or on gender stereotypes without regard to the evidence, contrary to ss. 7, 11 (d) and 15 of the Charter?

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.

Ms. Neeranjan, her husband, and three other co-accused were charged with offences related to credit card and bank fraud. The frauds were perpetrated principally by Ms. Neeranjan’s husband and one of the other co-accused. The charges against Ms. Neeranjan included possession of property by crime and participating in the activity of a criminal organization. Crown counsel argued at trial that goods and cash obtained from the fraud, seized in Ms. Neeranjan’s place of residence, were in plain view and she either knew they were proceeds of the fraudulent scheme or was willfully blind. Crown counsel argued at trial that real estate holdings in Ms. Neeranjan’s name were used in the fraudulent scheme. Ms. Neeranjan was convicted on two counts of possession of property obtained by crime and one count of participating in a criminal organization. She was acquitted of other charges. An appeal from the convictions was dismissed.