Anthony De Marco

The appellant was convicted of historical sexual offences against his younger sister, younger brother, and a childhood friend, receiving a total sentence of five years.

On appeal, he argued that proceeding with the charges 15 years after an initial police decision not to charge was an abuse of process, and challenged evidentiary rulings including the admission of similar fact evidence and the exclusion of s. 276 evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no abuse of process and upholding the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed; the court found the trial judge erred by not treating the appellant's early admissions as mitigating and by failing to consider his youth at the time of the offences.

The total sentence was reduced to three and a half years, and a s. 161 prohibition order was deleted.

The respondent attended a church service to protest same-sex marriages and intentionally pushed the pastor when he asked her to stop disrupting the service.

The trial judge acquitted her of assault, applying the principle of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles), and the summary conviction appeal court affirmed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the application of the de minimis principle to undisputed facts is a question of law alone, and that the respondent's intentional push in the context of disrupting a church service was not a trifling matter.

A finding of guilt was entered and the respondent was granted an absolute discharge.

The appellant was convicted of possession of property obtained by crime relating to stolen motor vehicles.

During the investigation, a police officer searched a briefcase found in a stolen van incident to the arrest of a co-accused.

The appellant claimed ownership of the briefcase, but the officer continued the search, finding incriminating documents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the search as a valid incident to arrest, finding the officer had a duty to discover and preserve evidence.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal in part, setting aside a $20,000 restitution order due to insufficient proof of loss.