Bradley J. Greenshields

The appellant, a stranger to the complainant, jumped out from behind bushes, blocked her path, and chased her down a dark street while she was jogging.

He was convicted of criminal harassment and sentenced to three years in prison.

On appeal, the court upheld the conviction, finding that a single incident of highly threatening and persistent conduct can constitute criminal harassment.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to two years' imprisonment, finding the original sentence disproportionate to the conduct.

In a subsequent addendum, the court struck a probation order it had initially imposed, as the totality of the appellant's sentences exceeded two years.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing a breath demand.

He argued he mistakenly believed the demand was for an approved instrument and that he did not have to comply because he had not been informed of his right to counsel.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary conviction appeal judge's decision, finding that a violation of section 10(b) of the Charter is not a reasonable excuse to refuse an approved instrument demand, though it may result in exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, appearing in person, sought an adjournment of his appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition pending the outcome of his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a related matter concerning the Board's Charter jurisdiction.

The respondents opposed the adjournment.

The Court of Appeal granted the adjournment, noting that the appellant's status would not change and there would be no detriment to the public interest, while a Supreme Court decision could affect further proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence of a witness, erred in finding the possible source of a burn, and failed to properly apply the W.D. test.

The Court of Appeal found no material misapprehension of evidence, held the trial judge was entitled to draw conclusions about the burn based on common experience, and found no error in the application of the W.D. test.

The sentence appeal was abandoned, and the appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed his sentence of 24 months' custody and supervision and 18 months' probation for aggravated assault and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the total sentence of 42 months exceeded the three-year maximum permitted under section 42(15) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Court also found the sentencing judge erred by failing to give full credit for the seven months and one week spent in pre-sentence custody.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the probation period to 12 months and adjusting the pre-sentence custody credit, while upholding the remainder of the sentence as fit.