Anthony Paas

The accused applied for a directed verdict on a charge of robbery with a firearm at the close of the Crown’s case.

The firearm was never recovered and had not been discharged during the robbery.

The court considered whether there was any evidence capable of supporting a jury finding that the object used during the robbery met the definition of a firearm under s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

Witness testimony describing the object, its apparent metal construction, its use to strike the victim, and threats to shoot provided circumstantial evidence capable of supporting that inference.

The court held that this evidence, if believed, could permit a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the item was a firearm.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his 30-month sentence for criminal negligence causing death by street racing.

He argued that the sentence should be reduced below the penitentiary range to preserve his right to appeal a deportation order under immigration legislation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while deportation consequences may be considered, they cannot take a sentence out of the appropriate range, which for this offence required a penitentiary term as established in a co-accused's case.

The appellant, an elector, swore a private information against a city councillor alleging breaches of the Municipal Elections Act regarding campaign expenses.

The application judge quashed the summons, finding the appellant was required to follow the compliance audit procedure under the Act rather than proceeding by private information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the statutory scheme supersedes an elector's general right to lay a private information.

The Court also addressed the respondent counsel's failure to inform the lower court of the pending appeal, which led to the underlying charges being dismissed, but exercised its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The elderly respondent was found not criminally responsible for killing his wife due to a delusional disorder.

The Ontario Review Board granted him an absolute discharge, with the majority concluding he did not pose a significant threat to public safety due to his physical frailty.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it relied on the respondent's physical presentation while failing to reconcile that assessment with medical evidence indicating he lacked insight, was poorly motivated to take medication, and posed a significant risk of violent re-offence.

The matter was remitted for an expedited re-hearing.

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine after two bottles of rum containing the drug were found in her possession at airport customs.

She appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to appreciate that her fingerprints were not on the bottles containing cocaine.

She also sought leave to appeal her three-year sentence, requesting a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion was supported by the totality of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the three-year term was within the recognized range for first-time drug couriers and was not demonstrably unfit.