David Tanovich

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, as well as his sentence.

He argued that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider charges separately, that a strip search violated his Charter rights, and that a police expert gave inadmissible evidence on the ultimate issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice in the jury instructions, an inadequate record for the Charter claim, and that the expert evidence was admissible under the Mohan criteria.

The appellant appealed her conviction and 16-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no evidence of abusive conduct by the Crown.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the custodial term to six months plus three years' probation, taking into account the appellant's current pregnancy with twins and the risk of her babies being taken from her if born in prison.

The appellant appealed his convictions for incest, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

The central issue was whether the trial judge provided adequate jury instructions regarding evidence of the appellant's discreditable conduct, including alleged physical abuse and sexual misconduct outside the indictment period.

The Court of Appeal found the instructions inadequate, noting they failed to caution the jury against using the evidence to infer the appellant was the type of person to commit the offences or to conclude he was deserving of punishment.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was arrested without a warrant in the laundry room of his rooming house, which was part of the superintendent's dwelling.

A search incidental to arrest yielded narcotics.

The trial judge held the arrest was lawful as it did not occur in the appellant's dwelling house.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Feeney warrant requirement applies to third-party dwelling houses.

The police entry was based on invalid consent obtained through trickery.

The Court found the appellant had standing to challenge the arrest because his own s. 8 Charter rights were engaged by the subsequent search.

The appeal was allowed, the evidence excluded, and an acquittal entered.