Danielle Robitaille

The appellant pleaded guilty to charges arising from a violent home invasion where he and an accomplice forced their way into a residence, bound the victim, stole property, and discharged a firearm while fleeing.

He was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant introduced fresh evidence of severe medical issues suffered while in custody, including a stabbing and an allergic reaction requiring a permanent tracheotomy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the nine-year sentence was at the low end of the range and that the paramount considerations of denunciation and general deterrence for such a serious offence overshadowed the appellant's medical condition, which should be managed by the Parole Board and penitentiary authorities.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of income tax evasion after claiming her depression prevented her from filing returns.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in admitting a doctor's letter as hearsay and relying on it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, agreeing with the appeal judge and further finding that the trial judge erred in law by relying on evidence he had previously ruled inadmissible to support the appellant's credibility.

The appellant was convicted of importing over 20 kilograms of marijuana after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Jamaica.

She appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly took judicial notice of common practices in drug importation cases to reject her credibility.

She also appealed her 18-month custodial sentence, seeking a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the trial judge properly relied on his experience and common sense in assessing credibility, and that the custodial sentence was appropriate given the commercial quantity of drugs and the need for deterrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on the doctrine of recent possession without rejecting the complainant's vague description of the intruders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge gave no weight to the vague descriptions and was entitled to rely on recent possession.

The Crown appealed the 12-month sentence, arguing it was outside the range for home invasions and failed to consider psychological harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach given the offender's circumstances and the lack of submissions on psychological harm at trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, choking, uttering a threat, confining, and sexually assaulting his former partner.

The central issue at trial was credibility, with the complainant and appellant providing contradictory accounts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

The trial judge failed to explain how he resolved significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainant's evidence, and failed to adequately explain why he rejected the appellant's evidence, thereby impeding the appellant's right to meaningful appellate review.