B. Durno

The appellant was convicted of mischief after placing a spray-painted, beat-up van on his property line to interfere with his neighbours' attempts to sell their home, amidst an ongoing dispute over basement flooding.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge rejected his defence under s. 430(7) of the Criminal Code, which protects acts done solely for the purpose of communicating information.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, holding that the s. 430(7) defence applies even if the communication is intended to persuade or pressure others by interfering with their property rights, provided the act itself is peaceful and solely communicative.

The appellant, who was 17 at the time of the offence, appealed his conviction for second degree murder arising from a robbery.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the defence of intoxication, the common sense inference, and the use of bad character evidence obtained during a 'Mr. Big' undercover operation.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury instructions, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the necessary legal principles regarding intoxication and intent.

The Court also held that the failure to give a standard limiting instruction on bad character evidence was not a reversible error given the defence's tactical reliance on that evidence to impugn the reliability of the appellant's confession.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Public Guardian and Trustee brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal, while the appellant brought a motion to dismiss his own appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the guardianship order had been carried out and the parties had moved to British Columbia.

The Court of Appeal rejected the jurisdictional arguments but granted the motion to quash the appeal on the basis that it was manifestly devoid of merit.

The appellant's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was dismissed.