Amanda Rubaszek

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing there was no unequivocal refusal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge's inference of an unequivocal refusal was available on the facts, and thus no error of law was demonstrated.

The appellant appealed a five-year sentence imposed for sexual offences against two young children.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by classifying the offences as hate crimes and by ignoring the principle of rehabilitation without evidence that the appellant was incapable of it.

While rejecting the proposed sentence of two years less a day as unfit, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to four years.

The young person appealed a custodial sentence, arguing it violated the parity principle given the non-custodial sentence imposed on a co-offender.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the parity principle and relevant statutory provisions, and was justified in concluding the seriousness of the offences placed the offender within the exceptional circumstances of s. 39 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The appellant pleaded guilty to breaching a no-contact order regarding his former common-law spouse, marking his seventh such conviction.

He was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment in addition to 34 days of pre-trial custody.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found no error in principle, holding that the sentence was fit given the appellant's history of flouting court orders, the need to protect the victims, and the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed from his conviction and sentence for a serious domestic assault.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and no basis to reduce the period of probation, concluding that the sentence was entirely fit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged convictions for sexual assault, sexual touching of a young person, and inviting a young person to touch him for sexual purposes, arguing multiple errors in the jury charge and seeking relief from a four-month custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly prevented the jury from speculating about collusion where no evidentiary foundation had been laid through cross-examination, and that the charge, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the defence position and the relevance of prior inconsistent statements to credibility.

On sentence, the court found no misapprehension of the psychologist’s evidence, no error in principle, and no basis for a conditional or intermittent sentence given the breach of trust, criminal record, and need for denunciation.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly weighed all relevant factors, including rehabilitation, and appropriately emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

The court concluded there was no error in principle and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge's reasons reflected a 2-for-1 credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a global sentence of 19 months, which the Crown acknowledged was outside the appropriate range.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to time served (13 months).