Alison Wheeler

The appellant appealed his conviction on counts of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, arguing the verdicts were inconsistent with his acquittal on sexual assault.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal his sentence of four years on the invitation to sexual touching count.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury verdicts were not inconsistent because the trial judge's instructions created a reasonable basis for the jury to understand that sexual assault required force applied by the appellant to the complainant, whereas sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching required only touching or an invitation to touch.

The court dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

This addendum addresses the appellant Ronald Cyr's request for clarification regarding the court's refusal to allow him to advance a new Charter argument on appeal.

The appellant sought to argue that sections 7, 11(d), and 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms required that clause 6 of section 3(1) of the Juries Act be expanded to exclude former auxiliary police officers from jury service.

The court declined to permit this new argument, finding no air of reality to the suggestion of bias and noting that sections 670 and 671 of the Criminal Code provided a complete answer to this ground of appeal.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference against the two daughters of his former girlfriend, with offences alleged between 2002 and 2004.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's denials and accepted the complainants' evidence.

The appellant was sentenced to two years less one day imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, finding that counsel failed to review a police statement with the appellant, failed to prepare him for cross-examination on that statement, and failed to intervene during cross-examination.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

Three accused were convicted of first-degree murder following a trial involving an undercover police operation.

The appellants challenged the conviction on multiple grounds including: (1) the trial judge's refusal to sever the trial; (2) the admissibility of statements made to an undercover officer; (3) jury management issues during sequestration; and (4) various trial procedure matters.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that joint trial was appropriate despite cutthroat defences, the undercover operation did not violate Charter rights, and jury management issues did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.