Anthony Moustacalis

The appellant was convicted of importing narcotics after arriving at Pearson International Airport with cannabis resin strapped to her body.

She appealed her conviction and 18-month conditional sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting her defence of duress, failing to find she knew the packs contained narcotics, and illegally modifying her conditional sentence conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed her credibility regarding the duress defence, the inference of knowledge was available on the evidence, and the condition to remain in Ontario was permitted under s. 742.3(2)(f) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his convictions for indecent assault male, sexual assault, and buggery, relating to historical allegations of abuse against a younger relative.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the pre-Lifchus jury charge on reasonable doubt substantially complied with the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's instructions, which told the jury that 'reasonable doubt' had no special legal meaning and could be determined using their everyday life experiences, failed to locate the standard above a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against former students.

One of the complainants brought a civil action against the accused and the school board.

The accused sought production of the complainant's civil litigation file to assess his motive to fabricate or exaggerate the incidents of abuse.

The trial judge ordered the production of the file.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that solicitor-client privilege should only yield to an accused's right to make full answer and defence in rare circumstances where core issues going to guilt are involved and there is a genuine risk of wrongful conviction.

The Court established a two-stage 'innocence at stake' test, which was not met in this case.

The appellant was convicted of importing a narcotic after customs officers discovered marihuana hidden inside coconuts in her luggage.

She appealed her conviction, arguing that the trial judge's jury instructions on the meaning of reasonable doubt were deficient.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury charge, which was given before the Supreme Court's decision in Lifchus, failed to clarify that more than a probability of guilt was required and improperly linked the standard to an ordinary everyday meaning.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and forcible confinement, as well as his sentence of nine years plus time served.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict and no basis for the ineffective assistance claim.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was justified by the serious nature of the offences and the appellant's extensive criminal record.

Commercial lease appeal concerning whether a successor landlord could re-measure leased premises and charge rent on a larger area than that fixed in a prior lease amending agreement.

The court held that the successor in title took subject to the existing lease and was bound by the stipulated square footage in the amending agreement.

The landlord failed to demonstrate any change permitting re-measurement under the original lease.

The appeal was allowed, declaratory relief was granted, and the tenant obtained a refund of excess rent paid with interest and costs.

The appellant challenged a robbery conviction on the basis that two eyewitness identifications were too unreliable to support the verdict.

The court held that the identification evidence, independently provided by two witnesses, was not so inherently unreliable as to render the conviction unreasonable.

Although the trial judge made one factual error in reviewing the evidence, it did not taint the verdict.

The court further held that the witnesses' independent and unsolicited identification of the appellant from a newspaper photograph before photographic line-ups did not, in the circumstances, taint their later identifications.