Brad Greenshields

The appellant, a 58-year-old family friend, was convicted of sexually assaulting the 17-year-old daughter of his close friend and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, applying the W.(D.) principles, and finding a lack of consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual findings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the six-year term was not demonstrably unfit given the significant breach of trust, the vulnerability of the adolescent victim, and the severe impact of the offences.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine after bricks of cocaine were found in an airport washroom.

A co-accused had previously pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they must accept the existence of the conspiracy based on the co-accused's guilty plea, and by failing to provide a proper Carter instruction regarding the use of co-conspirators' acts and declarations.

The Court of Appeal agreed that both instructions were erroneous and rendered the trial unfair on the conspiracy count.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso to uphold the importing conviction, finding the evidence on that count overwhelming.

The conspiracy conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, brought a second application for the extradition of the respondent on charges of cross-border internet child sexual exploitation.

The first committal order was quashed on appeal due to insufficient evidence linking the respondent to the IP address.

In this second application, relying on both American and Canadian-gathered evidence, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the reasonable inference that the respondent committed the offences using his laptop and IP address.

The respondent's applications for further disclosure and Charter exclusion having been dismissed, the court ordered his committal for extradition.

The applicant sought to re-open ex parte proceedings under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA) that resulted in Gathering and Sending Orders.

The applicant alleged material non-disclosure by the Attorney General regarding the legality of search warrants, the need for disclosure in extradition proceedings, warrantless seizure of subscriber information, and the authority to detain seized items.

The court found no material non-disclosure that would have altered the outcome or justified granting the applicant notice and standing at the MLACMA hearings.

The application to re-open was dismissed.