Eleanore A. Cronk

The respondent pled guilty to seven counts of robbery, dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, and possession of a stolen vehicle, receiving a total concurrent sentence of four years.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the total sentence manifestly inadequate given the respondent's extensive record, the number of offences, and the fact that he was on parole.

The Court varied the sentences for dangerous driving and failing to stop to be consecutive to the robbery sentences, resulting in a total sentence of six years, and imposed a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The appellant pleaded guilty to frauds involving credit card information that resulted in losses of $317,000 to banks and $2,121 to Future Shop.

The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence and probation, along with a restitution order of $52,121.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the restitution order.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's consideration of the relevant factors, including the appellant's role, ability to pay, and the total loss suffered, and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after an undercover police operation.

At trial, the appellant testified and admitted to a prior conviction for obstructing police, but the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the limited use of this prior conviction.

On appeal, the Crown conceded the error but argued the curative proviso should apply.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no realistic possibility that the jury would misuse the single, unrelated prior conviction to infer the appellant was a bad person or likely to traffic cocaine.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of welfare fraud for failing to disclose a loan from his cousin used to make car payments.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider his subjective understanding of the disclosure requirements, given his lack of commercial sophistication and language barriers.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge improperly merged the actus reus and mens rea analyses and failed to determine if the appellant knowingly failed to disclose the loan.

A new trial was ordered.