A. Menchynski

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal his 2017 convictions, arguing his guilty pleas were uninformed because he was unaware they would render him inadmissible to Canada.

The court dismissed the application, finding it moot because the Immigration Appeal Division had recently granted a conditional stay of his removal order.

The court also noted the application would have been dismissed regardless due to the applicant's significant delay in bringing the application and serious credibility issues with his evidence.

During a trial for an ATM break-in, the Crown applied to adduce non-expert opinion evidence from a police officer identifying the accused from video surveillance footage.

The officer had observed the accused on seven prior occasions during surveillance operations.

Applying the Leaney test, the court found the officer was sufficiently familiar with the accused and in a better position than the trier of fact to identify him.

The evidence was ruled admissible.

The applicant was convicted of refusing to provide a breath sample and sentenced to a fine, probation, and a 12-month driving prohibition.

She appealed the conviction and applied for a stay of the driving prohibition pending the appeal.

The court applied the test for a stay pending appeal, finding that the appeal was not frivolous, continuation of the prohibition was not necessary in the public interest, and granting the stay would not detrimentally affect public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for a stay was granted.