Alexander Hrybinsky

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms and drug offences, and his sentence of ten years' imprisonment.

At trial, the Crown improperly cross-examined the appellant regarding his brother's immunity under s. 13 of the Charter.

The trial judge stopped the questioning, refused a stay of proceedings, and provided a strong limiting instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the limiting instruction sufficient to cure any prejudice.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in rejecting hearsay evidence of historical sexual abuse as a mitigating factor.

The appellant was convicted of numerous firearms offences after police found stolen guns in his storage locker.

The search warrant was based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) relying on a confidential informant.

At trial, the Crown provided a judicial summary of the redacted ITO under step six of Garofoli, which the trial judge found adequate.

On appeal, the appellant sought to challenge the constitutionality of step six of Garofoli for the first time and argued the summary was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, refusing to hear the new constitutional argument and upholding the adequacy of the summary.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to grant enhanced credit for pre-trial custody at a rate of 1.5:1, reducing the net sentence to eight years and one month.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge applied a different standard of scrutiny to the testimony of the complainant compared to his own testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the stringent standard for establishing uneven scrutiny was not met and that the trial judge's findings were available on the evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraudulent possession of credit card data and possession of a credit card forgery device.

A USB device containing credit card information and a credit card reader were found in the console of his car.

The appellant conceded control but disputed knowledge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample circumstantial evidence to support the trial judge's inference of knowledge, including the appellant's attempt to evade police and the rejection of his testimony as a complete fabrication.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to one year imprisonment and two years' probation.

He appealed his conviction, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed because he expected a 45-day sentence based on his counsel's advice.

He also appealed his sentence, arguing insufficient weight was given to his traumatic brain injury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the plea was valid as the appellant knew he faced a custodial sentence, and the sentencing judge had properly considered his medical condition as a mitigating factor.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting his self-defence claim and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the force used was unreasonable was supported by the accepted evidence of an independent witness.

The court also rejected the ineffective assistance claim, concluding that trial counsel's approach was reasonable and the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice or professional incompetence.

The appellant, a former senior officer and director of a publicly held waste management firm, appealed his convictions for fraud over $5,000 and his sentence of eight years' imprisonment, a US $17.9 million restitution order, and a US $15.5 million fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The convictions arose from his undisclosed involvement in copper trading transactions that diverted millions of dollars from his employer to companies he controlled.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions on the duty to disclose, responses to jury questions, or the overall balance of the jury charge.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the Court affirming the fitness of the sentence and the appropriateness of the restitution and fine orders, subject only to a clarification that restitution payments would be credited against the fine to prevent double recovery.