Benita Wassenaar

The appellant sought leave to appeal a nine-year sentence for unlawful act manslaughter based on failing to seek medical attention for a two-year-old child who died.

The trial judge conducted a Gardiner Hearing and found the appellant had assaulted both the mother and child, though could not determine if he inflicted the fatal blow.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in her findings and that the sentence was disproportionate to the six-year sentence imposed on the mother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's findings were supported by evidence and the disparity in sentences did not constitute error.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and the sentence imposed, including a 15-year period of parole ineligibility.

The appellant killed his mother by striking her with a baseball bat and stabbing her repeatedly with a knife.

The trial judge instructed the jury on the statutory partial defence of provocation.

The jury rejected the provocation defence and convicted the appellant of second-degree murder.

On appeal, the appellant raised four grounds of appeal regarding the trial judge's charge to the jury, the admission of evidence, and the period of parole ineligibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld both the conviction and sentence.

The appellant was convicted by two separate juries of two murders committed in January 2008.

On appeal, the appellant challenged four pre-trial evidentiary rulings: (1) the admissibility of his statements to police on April 15 and 16, 2008; (2) the admissibility of shotgun shells found during a lawful traffic stop on January 15, 2008; (3) the admissibility of a statement made on February 19, 2008 regarding ammunition; and (4) the admissibility of bad character evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld all evidentiary rulings and dismissed the appeals.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on four counts of sexual offences involving a five-year-old complainant.

The trial judge found the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown advanced four grounds of appeal: (1) erroneous approach to the complainant's testimony; (2) improper imposition of a memory requirement for adoption of the videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code; (3) reliance on evidence outside the trial record; and (4) findings of fact without evidentiary foundation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no legal error and emphasizing the deference owed to trial judges on credibility findings and evidentiary assessments.

The appellant was convicted by jury of second degree murder in the shooting death of a drug dealer.

He appealed on two grounds: (1) that the trial judge erred in rejecting evidence regarding an alternate suspect, and (2) that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on party liability through aiding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly excluded the alternate suspect evidence as lacking sufficient probative value, and that while references to aiding may have been unnecessary, the jury charge read as a whole would not have misled the jury regarding the requirement that the appellant be a principal or joint principal with the requisite mental state.