Dale E. Ives

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of oxycodone, production of marijuana, and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant execution at a rural residence.

The Crown's case relied heavily on data extracted from a Samsung cell phone found at the residence, which the Crown alleged belonged to the appellant's son.

The appeal raised three main issues: whether the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to reopen its case by recalling the officer-in-charge; whether the trial judge erred in applying section 31.3(b) of the Canada Evidence Act to admit the cell phone data; and whether the trial judge erred in admitting the officer's opinion evidence regarding the text messages.

The majority dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that while the trial judge erred in relying on section 31.3(b), the evidence was properly admissible under section 31.3(a) and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arose.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding three cumulative errors that deprived the appellant of fundamental procedural protections.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault under s. 266 of the Criminal Code following a domestic altercation.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and failed to properly consider the defence of consent arising from the complainant's conduct during the confrontation.

The appeal court held that the trial judge mischaracterized key aspects of the appellant’s testimony, including whether he was certain his hands did not slide to the complainant’s throat and whether he had instructed the complainant to leave the room.

These errors materially affected the credibility analysis and the application of the W.(D.) framework.

Because the misapprehension of evidence was substantive and central to the conviction, the court found a miscarriage of justice and ordered a new trial.