Edwin Boeve

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown failed to explicitly establish that the police officer who administered the breath test was a qualified technician.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to infer the officer's designation from her testimony, her official capacity, and the certificate she produced, which created a rebuttable presumption that was not challenged.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual interference involving a child complainant.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements made by the complainant.

The Court of Appeal found that while some statements were improperly admitted, the appellant suffered no prejudice as the trial judge did not rely on them in her reasons.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's decision to go to trial as an aggravating factor and by finding a risk of re-offending without supporting evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, but the sentence appeal was allowed, substituting an eight-month jail term with a 15-month conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for aggravated assault and other offences.

The sentencing judge had credited the respondent's 16 months of pre-sentence custody as equivalent to almost three years, reducing the appropriate sentence to 14 months, which was then ordered to be served conditionally.

The Crown argued that pre-sentence custody cannot be used to reduce a penitentiary-range sentence to under two years to make a conditional sentence available.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 719(3) of the Criminal Code, a sentencing judge may take pre-sentence custody into account when determining the appropriate range of sentence for the purposes of the conditional sentencing regime.