Dana Achtemichuk

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred by dismissing his application to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's box.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, taking the opportunity to clarify the legal framework for courtroom seating.

The Court held that an in-custody accused is presumed to sit in the prisoner's box, though trial judges retain discretion to permit alternative seating based on security, trial fairness, and the ability to make full answer and defence.

The Court found the trial judge's decision was reasonable and that standard jury instructions adequately mitigate any potential stigma associated with the prisoner's box.

The appellant appealed convictions for firearm-related offences.

The firearm, ammunition, and an oversized magazine were seized from the appellant's home pursuant to a search warrant obtained after a threatening interaction between the appellant and his associates and a restaurant owner.

The appellant challenged the warrant through a Garofoli application, arguing the affiant mischaracterized the video evidence in the information to obtain and that the trial judge misapprehended the video surveillance evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no mischaracterization in the ITO and no error in the trial judge's assessment of the video evidence, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed his second-degree murder conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn and in giving a restrictive corrective instruction.

The trial judge had instructed the jury that they could not find a key Crown witness fabricated her evidence about the appellant's confession because defence counsel did not explicitly put that suggestion to her in cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no breach of the rule occurred as the tenor of the cross-examination made the defence's position clear.

Furthermore, the corrective instruction erroneously usurped the jury's function by prohibiting them from considering whether the witness fabricated the confession.

The curative proviso was not applied, and a new trial was ordered.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, sought the committal of the respondent for extradition on charges corresponding to sexual assault and accessing child pornography.

The respondent conceded committal for sexual assault but argued that the child pornography charge did not meet the requirement of double criminality due to the 'private use exception' established in R. v. Sharpe.

The court held that the private use exception is a defence, which an extradition judge has no jurisdiction to consider at the committal stage.

The court further found that even if the exception could be considered, the evidence of the prior exploitative relationship would vitiate consent.

Committal for extradition was ordered on both charges.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States, applied for disclosure of records relating to his arrest by border services and an assault he suffered while in provincial custody.

He intended to use the disclosure to seek a stay of the extradition proceedings, alleging Charter violations by Canadian authorities.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the alleged misconduct lacked any nexus to the extradition committal process or the gathering of evidence by the requesting state.