Breanna Vandebeek

The appellant, Donnovan Junior McLean, appealed his convictions for assaulting his pregnant wife and her 14-year-old son with a weapon, as well as his sentence.

The trial judge had convicted him and sentenced him to 60 days intermittent imprisonment plus probation.

The appeal grounds for conviction included alleged errors in assessing self-defence, relying on an unproved prior statement, and relying on a theory of injuries not advanced by the defence.

The court found no material misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge and upheld her credibility findings.

The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered aggravating factors (domestic assault, assault on a young person in a position of trust) and the parity principle, finding the sentence appropriate and at the low end of the range.

R.S., a young person, appealed his sentence for two counts of sexual assault, which included an 18-month custody and supervision order.

The appeal raised three grounds: the availability of a deferred custody and supervision order under s. 42(5) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the harshness of the sentence, and the impact of fresh evidence regarding his progress.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had sufficient evidence to conclude that serious psychological harm was caused to the victims, precluding a deferred custody order.

The court also determined that the sentence was not unduly harsh given the serious nature of the offences and their profound impact on the victims, despite mitigating factors and the appellant's rehabilitative potential.

Fresh evidence of the appellant's positive progress post-disposition did not alter the fitness of the original sentence.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

This is an application for bail pending appeal by Jeremy Bailey, who was convicted of serious drug offences and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

He had previously been granted bail pending appeal but was subsequently charged with new drug offences (fentanyl trafficking) and breaches of his release conditions, leading to his father withdrawing as surety.

Although he was granted new bail pending trial for the fresh charges with new sureties and electronic monitoring, the Court of Appeal dismissed his application for release pending appeal for the original convictions.

The court found that despite the proposed strictures and new sureties, the applicant's history of flagrant and almost immediate breaches of prior bail conditions, coupled with the seriousness of the offences, undermined public confidence in the administration of justice and presented lingering public safety concerns.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for murder.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge by denigrating the defence and failing to properly caution the jury regarding inferences about his age.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the charge fair when read as a whole.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge's ruling that he was at least 16 and a half years old was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence holistically, including the appellant's appearance, criminal record, and peer group, and reasonably concluded he was over 16.