Christen Cole

The appellant, R.C., appealed his conviction for two counts of sexual assault and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appeal raised six grounds of trial judge error and a seventh ground of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, supported by fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors by the trial judge in her credibility assessments or application of legal principles.

The fresh evidence did not establish that trial counsel's performance fell below a reasonable standard or occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Leave to appeal the sentence was refused as it was not pressed and found not demonstrably unfit.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending an extradition hearing to the Czech Republic for in-absentia convictions of break and enter and theft.

The Attorney General opposed release on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court found the applicant to be ordinarily resident in Canada, placing the onus on the Attorney General.

The court determined that the proposed release plan, including 24/7 surety supervision and house arrest, adequately mitigated flight risk and public safety concerns, and maintained confidence in the administration of justice, despite the seriousness of the underlying offences and the strong case for committal.

The application for judicial interim release was granted.

The appellant pleaded guilty to five charges arising from a home invasion, including an imitation firearm charge carrying a mandatory minimum sentence.

He appealed to strike his guilty pleas, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the plea to the imitation firearm charge was uninformed because trial counsel failed to advise him of it.

Furthermore, the court found that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance on the remaining charges by failing to assess the strength of the Crown's case, review disclosure, or consider potential Charter claims before advising the appellant to plead guilty.

The guilty pleas were struck and a new trial was ordered.

Four co-accused appealed convictions arising from a large-scale police investigation into criminal gang activity in Toronto (Project Battery and Project Rx).

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of wiretap authorizations and general warrants, alleging violations of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The key issues involved: (1) material non-disclosure regarding the use of a Mobile Device Identifier (MDI); (2) warrantless police entries into common areas of condominium buildings; and (3) warrantless installation of hidden surveillance cameras in condominium hallways.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions but found that the warrantless installation of hidden cameras violated section 8 rights.

However, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellants' convictions were dismissed except for a one-year sentence reduction for one appellant due to the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence regarding drug quantities.

The appellant appealed his conviction for fraud and his sentence.

The trial judge had found the appellant guilty based on acceptance of witness evidence that the appellant was privy to discussions about the fraudulent nature of a bank transaction.

The trial judge also stated that, alternatively, guilt could have been established through the doctrine of wilful blindness.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's reliance on wilful blindness flawed her primary W.(D.) analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons, when read as a whole, did not establish guilt on the basis of wilful blindness alone, but rather on the basis of actual knowledge.

The court also noted that guilt could alternatively have been established through wilful blindness.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of fraud over $5,000 and sentenced to 5.5 years in custody with a restitution order of $799,600.

On appeal, the appellant raised three grounds challenging the custodial term and one ground challenging the restitution amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor demonstrably unfit, that mental illness was not established as a mitigating factor at the time of the offences, that the remand into custody was justified despite procedural concerns, and that the full restitution order was appropriate given the nature of the fraud and the paramount consideration of victims' claims.

John Christopher De Vos was found guilty of three counts of trafficking in firearms.

He challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence of three years under s. 99(2) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated s. 12 of the Charter due to gross disproportionality given significant mitigating factors.

The court determined a fit sentence of 18 months imprisonment followed by two years' probation, finding the mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate and thus unconstitutional.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and a victim fine surcharge.