Cronk

The appellant, a former bookkeeper, appealed her conviction for fraud involving four company cheques made payable to and cashed by her.

She argued the conviction was unreasonable, the trial judge failed to address inconsistencies in Crown witness testimony, and the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof by noting the lack of a meaningful explanation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Crown's documentary evidence was uncontradicted, the defence theories were speculative, and the conviction did not rely on witness credibility.

The trial judge's comment on the lack of explanation did not shift the burden of proof but merely observed the uncontradicted nature of the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on wilful blindness.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding there was no air of reality to wilful blindness and the trial judge failed to refer to any evidence supporting it.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a large amount of heroin.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's finding of wilful blindness based on admissible evidence of earlier shipments.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered the parity principle and mitigating factors.

Applying the principle from R. v. Sidhu, the court held that the appellant's mistaken belief in the nature of the substance seized could not be treated as a mitigating factor.

The appellant appealed his total sentence of 4.5 years, comprising 3 years for a 10-year child abduction and 18 months consecutive for failing to appear.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was not excessive, noting the seriousness of the abduction and the aggravating circumstances of the failure to appear, which involved breaching an undertaking to the court to return the children.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a health spa owner, was convicted of unlawful confinement and assault after locking the door and pushing a client who tried to leave without paying.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge rejected her defence of citizen's arrest under s. 494 of the Criminal Code, finding she did not subjectively believe the client had committed a crime.

The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing a translation error affected her testimony and raising the issue of citizen's arrest for non-payment of services.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave, finding the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of significance to the administration of justice under s. 839(1) of the Criminal Code.