In addition, on the first day of trial, the Crown explained its
theory on what constituted the criminal conduct relating to the SUV
incident. The Crown explained that the police had the respondent
under surveillance because they were concerned about how he had
been “transporting a shotgun”. He explained that the alleged
offence involved “what you have to do when you’re transporting
firearms in a vehicle or, more importantly, if you leave them in an
unattended vehicle, namely that you can’t leave them visible”.
 This theme continued throughout the trial. The affiant for
the search warrant was clear in his evidence that the SUV
incident involved a transporting offence.
 As for the bedroom discovery, the trial Crown was also
clear on the first day of trial that he would be asking for an
amendment to count three to conform to the evidence. He specifically noted that the word “ammunition” should have read “
firearm”. The defence did not object at that time. Indeed, so
unobjectionable was the Crown’s comment that when the
respondent brought an application for a directed verdict, he was
mistakenly under the impression that the amendment to count
three had actually been made on the first day of trial.
 The respondent had fair notice of the charges he faced. It
was a simple prosecution, the scope of which was clear from the
outset. The offences were also clear. This is precisely the kind of
case that amendments are made for. They were properly made.
 I would grant leave to appeal, grant the appeal, set aside
the acquittals and reinstate the convictions.
Derakhshan v. Narula
2018 ONCA 658
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Hoy A.C.J.O., Rouleau and Benotto JJ.A.
July 25, 2018
Civil procedure — Appeal — Extension of time — Self-represented
appellant serving notice of appeal one day late because he was
misinformed about appropriate appellate court — Motion judge
dismissing appellant’s motion for extension of time for serving and
filing notice of appeal — Motion judge erring in finding that there was
prejudice to respondent on basis that her costs award was unlikely to
be satisfied — Justice of case requiring that extension be granted