Dan Stein

The appellant appealed his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon (a hunting knife) contrary to s. 90 of the Criminal Code.

The knife was found under the front seat of his pickup truck during a search incident to arrest for an unrelated matter.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: that the verdict was unreasonable, that the trial judge failed to adequately warn the jury about circumstantial evidence, and that the trial judge erred in answering a jury question about concealment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the verdict was reasonable, the jury instructions on circumstantial evidence were adequate, and the trial judge's response to the jury's question on concealment was proper and implicit in the overall jury charge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for breaking and entering into a dwelling house contrary to s. 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on fingerprint evidence linking him to a theft of over $4,000 from a condominium unit where he worked as a concierge.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the reliability of the fingerprint evidence; (2) a violation of s. 11(b) Charter rights regarding trial delay; and (3) a violation of s. 7 Charter rights regarding the failure to preserve video evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds and upheld the conviction.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 15 months' imprisonment plus two years' probation for possession of 28 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant had pled guilty and was admitted to the Halton Drug Treatment Court program but was expelled after testing positive for cocaine on three occasions and lying about the circumstances of his relapse.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's failure to fully engage in the program and his dishonesty as aggravating factors.

The court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to nine months' imprisonment, maintaining the probation and section 109 order.

The appellants were convicted by a jury of robbery, having their faces masked, assault with an imitation handgun, and using an imitation handgun.

One appellant was also convicted of resisting a peace officer.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his instructions on party liability for the firearm offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the jury was not properly instructed that a non-gun-wielding intruder must know the other intruder had a firearm to be found guilty as a joint principal.

The appeal was allowed for the joint convictions and disguise charges, but the conviction for resisting arrest was upheld as the appellant's actions constituted active resistance.

The appellant was convicted of attempt murder, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon after stabbing an unarmed victim at a house party.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to properly instruct the jury regarding bad character evidence about a prior knife incident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's mid-trial corrective instruction was adequate and the failure to include a further limiting instruction in the final charge did not constitute reversible error.

The accused, Hai Thi Pham, was convicted of producing marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

She challenged the two and three-year mandatory minimum sentences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) as violating s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found both mandatory minimums grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios involving licensed production and mistakes of law, and thus unconstitutional under s. 12 and not saved by s. 1.

Consequently, the court imposed a 10-month custodial sentence, followed by 18 months probation, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and forfeiture of grow-op equipment, considering aggravating factors (large commercial operation, public safety hazard, property damage) and mitigating factors (first offender, family, mental health issues, sentencing delay).

The appellant appealed his conviction for firearms offences, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing a mistrial.

After convicting the appellant but before sentencing, the trial judge realized he had concurrently presided over a preliminary inquiry in an unrelated attempted murder case where the appellant testified as an alleged victim.

The trial judge granted a mistrial in the preliminary inquiry but refused one in the appellant's trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that a reasonable person would apprehend that the trial judge may have been unconsciously influenced by the evidence from the preliminary inquiry, particularly regarding voice identification and wiretap evidence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and two counts of failure to comply with a probation order.

He was sentenced to two years less a day, minus pre-trial custody, and three months' probation.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it violated the 'jump principle' given his previous longest sentence for similar offences was seven months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the significant increase in sentence was justified by the appellant's disturbing pattern of criminal harassment involving multiple women and his commission of the offence while awaiting disposition on another assault charge.