Catrina Braid

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for a large-scale commercial grow operation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no breach of section 8 of the Charter after applying judicial editing to the search warrant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in concluding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for this type of offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 15-month sentence for trafficking in a Schedule 1 drug.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter motion to exclude evidence, claiming the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for his arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the officer's reliance on a reliable informant and corroborating observations provided sufficient grounds.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the appellant's commercial motive, prior criminal record, and subsequent breach of bail.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for various drug and property offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in her treatment of a witness's preliminary inquiry evidence and failed to properly apply the W. (D.) principles to the exculpatory defence evidence.

As a result, the convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking were substituted with simple possession.

The court also quashed convictions for simple possession of certain drugs where no such offence exists, quashed a property conviction as unreasonable, and quashed a money laundering conviction due to misdirection and lack of evidence.

Sentences on the remaining counts were reduced to time served.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for drug trafficking and related offences.

The Crown argued, and the respondent conceded, that the trial judge erred in imposing a conditional sentence after concluding the offences warranted a penitentiary term.

The Court of Appeal agreed and found it was required to impose a fit sentence.

Noting the respondent had served the equivalent of 25 months in custody and had made tremendous rehabilitative progress, as evidenced by fresh evidence and his Gladue worker, the Court substituted a sentence of time served plus three years' probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawfully entering Canada after being the subject of a removal order.

At trial, the judge allowed the Crown to rely on issue estoppel to prevent the appellant from attempting to prove he was a Canadian citizen.

Applying the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Mahalingam, the Court of Appeal held that the Crown cannot rely on issue estoppel against an accused.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.