3 total
Appeal from aggravated assault convictions dismissed; trial judge properly instructed jury and excluded self-defence.
The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault arising from a shootout outside a nightclub that injured the initial shooter and five bystanders.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing a mistrial over the Crown's opening address, declining to direct acquittals on the assault charges, and refusing to leave self-defence with the jury.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's corrective instruction was sufficient, there was circumstantial evidence to support secondary party liability, and self-defence lacked an air of reality given the indiscriminate nature of the return fire.
Faint hope appeal dismissed; screening judge’s refusal of jury hearing was reasonable.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of a faint hope application seeking a jury review of a 25-year parole ineligibility period for first degree murder.
The Court of Appeal held that the application judge applied the correct pre-2011 reasonable prospect screening standard under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code, did not misapprehend the evidence, and was entitled to consider institutional misconduct, psychological risk assessments, limited acceptance of responsibility, and the likely loss of community support upon deportation.
The court rejected the submission that reliance on static factors foreclosed any future application, noting that the judge expressly left open a renewed application in two years.
The appeal was dismissed as the screening decision fell within the broad range of reasonableness.
Arson-manslaughter sentences upheld but crushing restitution orders quashed.
Two appellants, addicted to fentanyl, set fire to a rowhouse using Molotov cocktails at the direction of their fentanyl dealer, killing three occupants and seriously injuring a fourth.
Both pleaded guilty to three counts of manslaughter and one count of arson causing bodily harm and received sentences of 16 and 17 years respectively, plus $250,000 restitution orders each.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's treatment of mitigating factors including addiction and mental health, and held the sentences were not demonstrably unfit.
However, the court quashed the restitution orders, finding the sentencing judge failed to weigh the appellants' ability to pay and imposed them as a mechanical afterthought.
Fresh evidence of post-sentencing cooperation with authorities was not admitted.
