Elise Sari Nakelsky

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.