Elise Sari Nakelsky

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that quashed the youth respondent's convictions for sexual offences against a four-year-old child and ordered a new trial.

The appeal judge had found the trial judge misapprehended evidence of opportunity and applied an adult standard to the youth's testimony.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, finding the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence, did not apply an inappropriate standard to the youth's testimony, and did not impermissibly assume the youth lied simply to avoid jail.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a home invasion where the complainants were threatened at gunpoint, held hostage, and threatened with being set on fire.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for accepting the complainants' evidence despite its frailties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and showed he considered the frailties and rejected the suggestion of collusion.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the six-year sentence (less pre-trial custody credit) was not manifestly unfit given the serious aggravating factors, including the appellant's role as the instigator.

The appellant appealed his sentence after inflicting a severe beating on the victim.

The Court of Appeal found that the offence required a lengthy penitentiary sentence, especially given the appellant's serious criminal record and prior convictions for similar offences of violence.

The court concluded that the trial judge made no error in principle, the sentence was not unfit, and the appellant remained a serious danger to the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of 16 counts of violence and sexual aggression against his former wife and was designated a dangerous offender, receiving an indeterminate sentence.

He appealed the designation and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered the evidence, including expert testimony that the appellant was at the highest risk to re-offend violently and had no reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial judge's reasons for dismissing the charges did not meet the requirements of R. v. Sheppard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient to explain why the traffic stop was arbitrary and violated s. 9 of the Charter.

The trial judge had accepted the appellant's evidence and rejected the officer's testimony regarding the reason for the stop.

The Court of Appeal restored the order dismissing the charges.

The appellant, a bookkeeper, stole over $300,000 from her employer over three years to fund a gambling addiction linked to post-traumatic stress disorder.

She appealed her 16-month custodial sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to give adequate weight to her mental health diagnoses and erred in not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge appropriately balanced the appellant's rehabilitation and mental health with the need for denunciation.

The appellants were convicted of fraud over $5,000 and public mischief in relation to a scheme to defraud an insurer by falsely reporting a truck as stolen.

A co-accused was acquitted.

The appellants appealed, arguing the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and their convictions unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence against the appellants was much stronger than against the acquitted co-accused, and the convictions were reasonable based on the evidence.

The appellant appealed his sentence for robbery, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting a joint submission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the test for rejecting a joint submission, noting the appellant's lengthy criminal record, the seriousness of the offence, and the fact that counsel were unaware of the full extent of the record when making the joint submission.

The appellant was convicted of assault and received a conditional discharge.

Her summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

She appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting her testimony and accepting the complainant's version of events.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons were brief, they demonstrated a firm grasp of the evidence, correctly applied the burden of proof and the W.(D.) test, and met the functional requirement for adequate reasons.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and choking to facilitate the assault.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of two years less a day, taking into account pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing the judge exceeded the range submitted by counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no joint submission existed and the sentence was fit given the circumstances and the appellant's substantial criminal record.