Deborah Calderwood

The defendant, A.C., brought an application challenging the constitutionality of subsections 278.94(2) and 278.94(3) of the Criminal Code, arguing they violated sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The challenge asserted infringements on the right to a fair trial, against self-incrimination, and prosecutorial independence due to the complainant's right to appear and make submissions at admissibility hearings for sexual activity evidence.

The court applied the Mills/Darrach approach for constitutional challenges to legislation and dismissed the application, finding no Charter breach.

The court clarified that the complainant's involvement is limited to providing perspective on the admissibility of evidence, combating myths and stereotypes, and does not transform the complainant into a second prosecutor or infringe on the accused's fundamental rights.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed following conviction for theft and money laundering of gold from the Canadian Mint where he was employed.

The sentencing judge imposed a custodial sentence of two years and six months, a restitution order of $190,000, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $190,000.

The appellant limited his appeal to the quantum of the restitution order and the fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the restitution order but reduced the fine in lieu of forfeiture to $130,206.19, finding that the sentencing judge erred by using market value rather than the actual proceeds of crime received by the appellant.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault of his then 17-year-old niece, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a proper curative instruction to the jury in response to Crown counsel's closing remarks.

Crown counsel had commented that the complainant was not asked about abrasions to her genitals or the presence of male DNA on her body.

The appellant argued this violated the rule prohibiting questions about other sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's instructions adequately addressed the issue by explaining the legal prohibition on such questions and reiterating the Crown's burden of proof.

The court also dismissed the appellant's request for leave to appeal his sentence, which was imposed pursuant to a joint submission.

The appellant was convicted by jury of intentionally discharging a firearm while reckless as to the life or safety of another person and occupying a motor vehicle while knowing there was a firearm in the vehicle.

The Crown's theory was that the appellant counselled an unknown SUV driver to shoot at the victim as retaliation for damage to the appellant's mother's vehicle.

The appeal raised the issue of whether the convictions were unreasonable based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal was divided: one judge would have allowed the appeal and entered acquittals, finding insufficient evidence to support the convictions; the majority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions, finding the jury verdicts reasonable on the totality of the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for incest and sexual assault of his teenage daughter, who gave birth to two of his children.

He received a global sentence of ten years.

At trial, the appellant dismissed his counsel midway through cross-examination and applied for a mistrial based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

The trial judge dismissed the mistrial application.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to apply the same standard for assessing ineffective assistance claims used on appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the test for a mistrial application differs from the appellate test and remains within the trial judge's discretion.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his sentence.

The assault occurred outside a McDonald's restaurant in Ottawa.

The main issue at trial was identification.

The trial judge provided detailed reasons supporting her conclusion that the appellant was identified as the assailant beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge adequately addressed the conflicting evidence and the verdict was reasonable.

On sentence, the court found the sentence was not unfit given the serious and cowardly nature of the attack, the victim's serious injuries requiring reconstructive surgery, and the appellant's serious criminal record for violent offences.

The court rejected a parity argument, noting significant differences between the appellant and a co-accused, including the co-accused's early guilty plea and minor record.

Both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and related offences arising from events on May 8, 2013, and his sentence of eight years imprisonment.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's handling of a section 276 application and her treatment of the underlying issues in her reasons for judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly appreciated the complainant's inconsistency regarding her relationship with an acquaintance and correctly concluded that further details would not have advanced the defence's motive theory.

The trial judge's reasons were thorough and well-grounded in the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearm and disguise with intent, arguing the conviction was unreasonable.

The case was circumstantial, turning on the identity of the robber.

The trial judge found that a leather jacket and gloves were used in the robbery and abandoned near the scene.

The appellant's DNA was found on the jacket, and exclusively on the gloves.

The trial judge also found that the appellant had worn the same jacket approximately one month earlier in a booking video.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's findings supported the conclusion that there was no other reasonable inference to be drawn, and the verdict was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal from conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the complainant and his own credibility.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly address alleged major inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and corroborating evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to criticize the trial judge's credibility analysis and dismissed the appeal.