Enoch Guimond

The Crown appealed a suspended sentence and 12 months' probation imposed on the respondent, a first-time offender who pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm for choking his domestic partner to the point of unconsciousness.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found the sentence demonstrably unfit and held that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to give sufficient weight to denunciation and deterrence.

The court determined the fit sentence was 60 days' imprisonment less pre-trial custody, plus 12 months' probation.

However, given the appellate delay and the respondent's rehabilitative gains, the court permanently stayed the execution of the custodial sentence.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for assault arising from an altercation at a shopping mall.

She argued the trial judge erred by inferring her nails caused the complainant's facial injuries, misapprehending her evidence regarding the word 'disengaged', and treating the fact that the parties were strangers as an aggravating factor on sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inference about the injuries was reasonable, the misapprehension of evidence was peripheral and did not cause a miscarriage of justice, and there was no reversible error in the sentencing analysis.

The plaintiff sued the police and Crown Attorneys for negligent investigation, unlawful arrest, and intentional infliction of mental suffering following an acquittal on a murder charge that involved a 'Mr. Big' operation.

The Crown Attorneys moved to strike the plaintiff's claim and a crossclaim brought by the police for negligent legal advice.

The court struck the plaintiff's claim against the Crown Attorneys, finding it barred by absolute common law immunity, which only allows claims for malicious prosecution.

However, the court refused to strike the police crossclaim for negligent legal advice, finding it was not plain and obvious that Crown Attorneys do not owe a duty of care to police when providing legal advice during an investigation.

The court also held that statutory immunity under s. 8 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act applied to the plaintiff's claim but not the crossclaim.