Craig Parry

The accused appealed convictions for three counts of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The appeal alleged misapprehension of the evidence and inadequate reasons by the trial judge regarding the central issue of consent and the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The reviewing court found that the trial judge relied on a theory of incapacity to consent unsupported by the complainant’s own evidence, misinterpreted post‑offence conduct as circumstantial evidence of guilt, and failed to analyze significant contradictory evidence relevant to credibility and consent.

The reasons were also insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review because they summarily rejected the accused’s testimony without explanation.

The court concluded that these errors amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple serious drug trafficking and production offences, including six counts of trafficking in cocaine, one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, seven counts of possession of proceeds of crime, two counts of production of cannabis marihuana, and one count of possession of cannabis marihuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The offences occurred between July and November 2011 and involved significant quantities of controlled substances.

The accused was a mid to high-level dealer operating as a commercial enterprise.

The court imposed a sentence of eight years and two months imprisonment after crediting pre-trial custody and strict bail compliance, balancing principles of general deterrence and denunciation with rehabilitation and restraint.

The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to address contradictions between police witnesses regarding the timing of breath demands.

The appellate court held that the trial judge reasonably accepted the evidence that a valid roadside screening demand was made and unequivocally refused at 1:51 a.m.

Any discrepancies concerning a later second demand were not material to the conviction.

The court found no misapprehension of evidence, illogical reasoning, or miscarriage of justice.

The applicants, charged with unlawful production of marijuana, brought a pre-trial application alleging breaches of their ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights following a warrantless police search of their apartment.

Police had responded to a report of a domestic disturbance and, despite the applicants' explanations and lack of apparent distress, entered and searched the apartment based on a general police policy, discovering a small marijuana grow operation.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds to believe anyone else was in the apartment requiring assistance, rendering the search unreasonable and the detention arbitrary.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown sought to admit breath sample results obtained following a roadside screening device demand.

The court found that although the officer unnecessarily provided rights to counsel at a time when none were legally required, this did not constitute a Charter breach.

The "forthwith" requirement under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code was satisfied, as there was no reasonable opportunity for the accused to consult with counsel before providing the sample.

The application was dismissed and the evidence was admitted.