Brian A. Callender

The appellant appealed his four-year penitentiary sentence for voyeurism, making child pornography, and internet luring involving two teenage victims.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by over-emphasizing consecutive sentences and unreasonably assessing aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the global sentence fit given the serious aggravating features, including breach of trust, careful planning, grooming, and exploitation of a victim's poverty.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed following a guilty plea for a serious violent offence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the sentencing judge gave appropriate weight to the guilty plea and that the sentence was fit given the appellant's escalating record for violence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of assault and his sentence of 12 months' imprisonment consecutive to a sentence he was already serving.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her credibility assessment and that the Crown's cross-examination was abusive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, which were supported by police observations of bite marks, and concluding the cross-examination was relevant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the domestic context, the injuries, and the appellant's lengthy criminal record.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for habeas corpus regarding a prison transfer.

He argued that the Warden's reasons for ordering the transfer were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reviewing judge that, although the reasons could have been better, the appellant knew he was being transferred due to security concerns triggered by an altercation with his cell mate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable because the trial judge failed to address a discrepancy in witness testimony regarding whether the robber had a Jamaican accent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were comprehensive and adequately addressed most discrepancies in the identification evidence.

The court noted that defence counsel had not raised the accent issue at trial and the evidence on the point was not strong.

The appellant appealed a sentence of two years and nine months imprisonment for sexual assault.

The appellant argued the trial judge placed undue emphasis on his position of trust, claiming he was a fraudster rather than a genuine healer, and that the sentence was disproportionate due to immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant used his purported position as a religious consultant and healer to fraudulently obtain consent for sexual acts, and that the sentence was fit regardless of immigration consequences.

The appellant, a career criminal with a lengthy record, appealed his concurrent 21-month sentences for two counts of breach of recognizance.

The trial judge had treated the appellant as being at the 'worst end of the continuum' simply because he was subject to a section 810.2 recognizance.

The Court of Appeal held this was an error in principle, as it would inevitably result in maximum sentences regardless of the gravity of the breach or rehabilitative steps.

The appeal was allowed and the sentences for the breach of recognizance counts were reduced to 12 months concurrent.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for historical sexual and physical abuse of his children.

The Court of Appeal found the original sentence manifestly inadequate and held that the trial judge erred in giving credit for delay in sentencing.

The appeal was allowed, and the total sentence was increased to nine years' imprisonment.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision confirming a Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment for a mental disorder, including the use of neuroleptics.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board did not misapprehend the evidence, noting the appellant's denial of his schizophrenia diagnosis and lack of insight into the consequences of refusing treatment.

The Court held that the Board correctly applied the Health Care Consent Act and dismissed the appeal.