Christopher Hicks

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault and common assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge made no errors of law and was not required to provide detailed self-instruction in her reasons.

The court upheld the three-year sentence for sexual assault but allowed the sentence appeal in part to delete an illegal two-year probation order that followed the penitentiary sentence, substituting a concurrent six-month sentence for the common assault.

The appellant sought to challenge a single judge's denial of leave to appeal from the dismissal of a summary conviction appeal.

The court held that no statutory right of appeal or review exists from a decision granting or denying leave under s. 839(1) of the Criminal Code.

It further held that neither the Criminal Appeal Rules nor the Rules of Civil Procedure can create such a substantive right by incorporation, and that s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act does not apply because s. 7(3) expressly excludes motions for leave to appeal from the category of motions reviewable under that provision.

The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder.

He argued that his Charter rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) were violated during police questioning and the taking of bodily samples, that the jury instructions on reasonable doubt were inadequate, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant made an informed choice to cooperate with police, the jury instructions substantially complied with the required standards, and trial counsel's tactical decisions were reasonable and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed a second degree murder conviction arising from a fatal confrontation in his residence, where he asserted self-defence and the trial judge left provocation with the jury.

The Court of Appeal held that the self-defence charge was adequate, but found reversible error in the response to the jury's question on provocation and in the treatment of after-the-fact conduct because the jury was not properly instructed on innocent explanations and conduct consistent with innocence.

The court further held that Crown counsel's cross-examination was repeatedly improper, including questioning on silence, disclosure, and criminal record details, and that the curative instructions did not adequately remove the prejudice.

Considering these errors cumulatively, the court concluded the appellant did not receive a fair trial and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed drug trafficking and proceeds convictions on the ground that he was wrongly denied a jury trial after failing to attend on the scheduled trial date.

The court held that under s.598(1) of the Criminal Code the onus rested on the accused to establish a legitimate excuse, and the pre-trial judge was entitled to reject the illness explanation as not credible.

The court further held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to reconsider the pre-trial s.598(1) ruling on the basis that only the trial judge had jurisdiction.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the conditional sentence breach regime under s. 742.6 of the Criminal Code after a judge ordered that part of the unexpired conditional sentence be served in custody.

The Court of Appeal held that breach proceedings are part of the sentencing process, not a prosecution for a new offence, so the protections in s. 11 of the Charter do not apply.

The court further held that proof on a balance of probabilities and the statutory burden regarding reasonable excuse do not offend s. 7.

It rejected arguments concerning jurisdiction, the validity of the appellant's admission of breach, and the fitness of the resulting custodial variation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was convicted of touching his six-year-old daughter for a sexual purpose.

The trial judge admitted the child's videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, despite inconsistencies with her viva voce testimony on cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, holding that the contradicted portions of the videotape were inadmissible.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the strict adoption test for prior inconsistent statements does not apply to s. 715.1.

A videotaped statement is adopted if the child acknowledges making it and attempting to be truthful at the time.

Inconsistencies elicited during cross-examination go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal allowing the Crown's appeal from their acquittal on charges of manslaughter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that under the established rules for directed verdicts, the Court of Appeal did not err in ordering a new trial.