Alexander Victor Hrybinsky

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued that the jury was misled by the trial judge's charge on reasonable doubt and that the verdicts were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no merit in the arguments and concluding that the jury likely divided the incident into episodes.

The court also refused leave to appeal the sentence, finding no error in principle.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a sexual offence involving a young complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding reasonable doubt, eye-witness identification, and in exhorting the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the instructions proper.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately weighed character evidence against the aggravating factors of grooming and a quasi-trust position, making a conditional sentence inappropriate.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing for a term of incarceration.

The Court of Appeal expressed some concern about whether the sentencing judge adequately considered the seriousness of the offences and community protection.

However, the Court declined to substitute incarceration, noting the respondent's significant rehabilitation over three years, his compliance with strict conditions for seven months, his completion of community service, and his entry into a treatment program.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and other offences.

At his third trial, the Crown sought to introduce his personal diary as part of its case-in-chief.

The trial judge excluded the diary, ruling its admission would violate the accused's Charter rights against self-incrimination by tactically compelling him to testify.

The Crown called no further evidence, resulting in an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the diary was created prior to state intervention and its admission did not create a legal compulsion to testify.

The Court also found no abuse of process in the Crown's decision to call no evidence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault and multiple breaches of recognizance arising from a deteriorating relationship with his wife.

Almost a year later, he applied for an extension of time to appeal his convictions, which was dismissed by the summary conviction appeal court.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, did not adequately explain the lengthy delay, and failed to show any merit to the proposed appeal or that an injustice had occurred.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that had overturned the accused's conviction for impaired driving.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge erred in law by re-weighing the evidence regarding whether the police officer had objective reasonable grounds to make a breath demand.

The trial judge's finding that reasonable grounds existed, based on a civilian tip and the officer's observations of swaying, odour of alcohol, and bloodshot eyes, was reasonably open to him.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his pre-trial application, which sought to litigate interlocutory rulings from the preliminary inquiry and alleged violations of s. 11(b) of the Charter and lack of disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge properly exercised his discretion to dismiss the application, as these matters are ordinarily dealt with by the trial judge.

The Court directed that the matter proceed to trial as soon as possible.

The appellants appealed jury convictions and sought to adduce fresh evidence that a knife said at trial to belong to one appellant was actually the victim's knife dropped at the scene.

The Crown conceded the fresh evidence justified a new trial for one appellant, but argued it was not admissible or decisive for the other under the Palmer criteria.

The court held the Crown's joint venture theory and the way the knife evidence was used at trial bound the appellants together for purposes of the fresh evidence analysis.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered for both appellants.

The Crown appealed an acquittal directed by the summary conviction appeal court.

The respondent and a co-accused were originally convicted of three counts of assault at trial.

The summary conviction appeal court judge allowed the respondent's appeal and directed acquittals, finding the trial judge erred by failing to give reasons for credibility findings, misapplying reasonable doubt, and relying on common intent.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge erred by substituting his own appraisal of credibility and retrying the case.

The trial judge's brief reasons were sufficient given the contradictory but not confused evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions.

The Crown appealed a sentence of three years' imprisonment and a six-year driving prohibition imposed on the respondent, who pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing death and one count of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The respondent crossed the centre line and collided with an oncoming vehicle, killing two children and injuring their mother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge made no error in principle and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the mitigating factors, including an early guilty plea, lack of a prior criminal record, and genuine remorse.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break, enter and theft.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, specifically that his promise to appear from an unrelated matter was found inside the premises.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that there was no evidence of a break-in, no evidence the appellant entered the premises, and the presence of the promise to appear did not establish that the appellant was the thief.

The circumstantial case could not reasonably support the finding that the appellant was the only reasonable inference.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for domestic violence.

The Court of Appeal noted that while the sentence would be high for a first offence, the appellant had an horrific criminal record for violence against women and non-compliance with court orders.

Given the pre-sentence report indicating a very high risk to re-offend, the court found the sentence merited and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for manslaughter and the sentences imposed for manslaughter and possession of a restricted weapon.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on common intention under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the jury charge, noting the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the common intention to rob did not terminate before the appellant and his confederate left the scene.

The appeals against conviction and sentences were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a criminal conviction and appeared in person.

The court adjourned disposition initially to obtain an expedited transcript of a witness's evidence, then reviewed the full transcripts.

The appeal turned on credibility findings made by the trial judge, who accepted the Crown witness's evidence and rejected the appellant's version of events.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from severe scalding injuries suffered by a young child left unattended near an extremely hot bathtub.

The court rejected arguments that the jury charge was misleading, that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury to apply an objective mens rea standard, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

Relying on Supreme Court of Canada authority, the court held that criminal negligence is assessed objectively absent personal characteristics establishing incapacity to appreciate risk, which were not present on the record.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned because the custodial sentence had already been served.

The appellants challenged an order dismissing their application to quash committals to stand trial arising from a bank robbery prosecution based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal applied the strict test governing review of a committal and held there was no scintilla of evidence on the element of identity.

The purported clothing nexus between one appellant and one robber failed because the descriptions contained a material dissimilarity, leaving only resemblance, suspicion, and speculation.

The appeal was allowed and the orders to stand trial were quashed on all charges.