Brian Snell

The appellant appealed an 18-month conditional sentence imposed for introducing narcotics into a penitentiary.

The trial judge had accepted a joint submission from experienced counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the appellant's unblemished past and remorse, the serious aggravating factor of introducing drugs into a penitentiary meant the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed a two-year sentence, conceding that the sentence was fit but arguing it was improperly imposed.

The Court of Appeal distinguished the case from R. v. Luther, noting the sentence was fit and exactly what the appellant had requested at trial.

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

The appellant was convicted of importing 603 grams of heroin and a switch blade into Canada.

He appealed his convictions and sentences.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of a narcotics identification kit (N.I.K.) test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence flowed naturally from cross-examination and the jury was properly instructed not to use the N.I.K. results to resolve the issue of continuity.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred by treating the weapon as an aggravating factor for the heroin charge while also imposing a consecutive sentence for the weapon.

The sentence appeal was allowed, and the one-year sentence for the weapon was made concurrent to the 12-year sentence for importing heroin.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in determining the location of the assault.

The Court of Appeal held it was open to the trial judge to infer the assault occurred at the complainant's room based on the absence of a blood trail.

The Court also found that any misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's brother's cooperation with police was not material to the result.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a 1978 murder.

After years of gradual release, he resumed substance abuse and the Review Board ordered his continued detention at a psychiatric hospital, finding him a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal set aside the Board's order as unreasonable and directed an absolute discharge, while refusing to admit fresh evidence of recent violent behaviour.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Board's decision was not unreasonable given its expertise and the evidence of the respondent's resumed cocaine use.

The Court also held that the fresh evidence should have been admitted in the interests of justice.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and possession of stolen property arising from the robbery of a taxi driver.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury not to speculate on the absence of forensic evidence linking the appellant to the stolen items, and permitted the jury to rely on the taxi driver's in-dock identification.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that an absence of evidence can raise a reasonable doubt, and by failing to adequately warn the jury about the dangers and lack of probative value of in-dock identification.

The appellant was found not guilty of second-degree murder by reason of insanity in 1978.

Over the years, he gained increased access to the community but was returned to in-patient status after testing positive for drugs.

The Ontario Review Board ordered his detention with only staff-accompanied access to the community.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred by shifting the focus from public protection to punishing the appellant for drug use.

The Court held the evidence did not establish the appellant was a significant threat to public safety and ordered an absolute discharge.