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 following facts were set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Appellant and Simon Kwok Chow were convicted of the first degree murder of Vikash Chand on February 6, 2001 after a trial before a judge and jury in Vancouver. The victim was shot seven times in the Appellant's car lot, on October 7, 1998, while changing a licence plate on Chow's car. The Appellant and Chow were jointly charged with George Wasfi and Shane Kelly Shoemaker. Wasfi applied successfully for a severance at the end of the Respondent's case. Shoemaker was convicted as charged and has not appealed. The driver of the getaway vehicle was Haddi Binahmad. He signed an immunity agreement in exchange for evidence in support of the prosecution and testified that Wasfi told him that Mapara wanted them to kill the victim.

Chow's telephone calls were tapped under an authorization related to a drug investigation. On the day of the murder, the police intercepted a call between Chow and Wasfi (call no. 79). Chow called Wasfi in Regina and immediately handed the phone to the Appellant. After the Appellant and Wasfi spoke for a while, the Appellant took another call and handed the phone back to Chow. Chow and Wasfi talked for a while, then Chow handed the phone back to the Appellant who again talked with Wasfi. While Wasfi and the Appellant were still connected, the Appellant received a telephone call from the victim. The Appellant's side of the conversation was picked up by the wiretap. The intercept recorded the Appellant telling the victim to meet him at the Rags to Riches lot in 15 minutes. When that call terminated, and upon returning to his conversation with Wasfi, the Appellant was heard to exult at his good fortune in making this arrangement. Wasfi confirmed the victim would be at the lot in 15 minutes and agreed to page all 2s which the Respondent alleged was a signal to the killers to go to the lot and carry out the murder.

Chow and the Appellant testified in their defence while Shoemaker did not. Chow explained the intercepted telephone calls with Wasfi as referring, in the main, to a marijuana deal they were developing together. In two of the calls prior to the killing, Chow said he realized that Wasfi was referring to a contract killing, but he said he was not interested in becoming involved. He said that he thought the money he paid to Binahmad was for the marijuana deal. The Appellant explained the call on the day of the killing as relating to a two- or three-way car deal, although he realized after the victim had been shot that he had been duped by Wasfi in getting the victim to the lot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal.