C. Spettigue

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for criminal harassment of his former intimate partner.

He raised several grounds of appeal, including inadequate reasons, violation of his right to a fair trial regarding the abandonment of an O'Connor application while self-represented, reasonable apprehension of bias, misapprehension of evidence, improper admission of character evidence, and unreasonable verdict.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or procedural rulings, noting the trial judge's findings were supported by the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered 56.7 grams of the substance during a traffic stop.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a conditional sentence order of two years less a day.

The court applied the public interest test from Anthony-Cook, noting the offender's guilty plea mitigated live Charter issues regarding the vehicle search.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and imposed the conditional sentence along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction and 9-month sentence for sexual assault.

The assault occurred in the workplace where the appellant was the spouse of the owner.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, improperly relied on the complainant's delayed reporting, and erred in finding post-offence conduct.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly rejected the defence's reliance on sexual assault behaviour myths and had ample evidence to conclude the appellant's actions demonstrated consciousness of guilt.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 9-month custodial sentence was fit given the appellant's prior record and position of authority.

The appellant appealed a 20-year driving prohibition imposed in 2009 following guilty pleas to care and control over 80mg and breach of probation.

The appellant had an extensive record of drinking and driving offences spanning over 40 years.

The appeal was brought over five years after sentencing.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found no palpable or overriding error by the sentencing judge, noting the appellant's record and the fact that he had been convicted of another impaired driving offence in 2014 while the appeal was pending.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused applied to quash a production order and exclude hospital medical records and blood alcohol test results obtained following a fatal motor vehicle collision.

The defence argued that police improperly obtained the records through a production order under s. 487.012 of the Criminal Code rather than a search warrant and that the Information to Obtain was insufficient and misleading.

The court held that the statutory standard for a production order was constitutionally valid and materially equivalent to the search warrant standard, and that the issuing justice could reasonably have been satisfied that the statutory prerequisites were met.

Any inaccuracies or omissions in the Information to Obtain were found to be inconsequential and not misleading.

The Crown appealed a 12-month conditional sentence imposed on a young first offender who suffered from a mental illness.

Although the law now requires a custodial sentence for the offence in question, the Court of Appeal declined to interfere because the respondent had successfully served the conditional sentence and addressed his mental health issues through prescribed medication.

The appeal was dismissed.