Dr. Joel Mayer

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing that he was deprived of a fair trial due to unfair and inflammatory cross-examination and jury addresses by Crown counsel.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence of alleged juror misconduct based on online comments made after the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while some of the Crown's comments were ill-advised, they did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial when viewed in the context of the entire proceedings.

The court also dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, concluding it did not prove Crown misconduct or compromise the integrity of the trial.

The defendant was charged with refusing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples suitable for analysis under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the defendant failed to provide suitable samples during ten attempts at an OPP detachment on April 1, 2012.

The defence challenged both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence, arguing that the breath technician's rejection of the samples was unreasonable and that instrument malfunction could not be ruled out.

The court found that the breath technician properly exercised his discretion in rejecting the samples as unsuitable, that the defendant manifested no signs of distress, and that the Crown adequately proved the instrument was functioning properly.

The defendant was found guilty.

The appellant, a physician, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years in prison for the death of his wife, which was caused by multi-drug toxicity from anaesthetics he injected.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing his application for a stay due to unreasonable delay, in her jury instructions on unlawful act manslaughter, motive, and causation, and in sentencing him based on unlawful act manslaughter rather than criminal negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's rulings or jury instructions.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge was entitled to make independent factual findings consistent with the jury's verdict for sentencing purposes.

The appellant, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a judges' ruling that suspended him for 60 days and fined him $1,000 for possessing controlled diuretics (Sodium Edecrin and Furosemide) without a prescription at a racetrack.

The Administration presented evidence that the drugs could be used to mask other substances in both human and equine drug testing programs.

The panel rejected the appellant's explanation that the drugs were for personal use to treat gout, drawing an adverse inference from his failure to testify.

The appeal was dismissed and the original penalty was upheld.

The insured suffered a foot injury when he was struck by a vehicle while crossing a highway while impaired by alcohol.

Over a month later, he was found dead in an apartment, having bled to death from scalp lacerations sustained in a fall.

His spouse and daughters applied for statutory accident death and funeral benefits, arguing that his foot injury caused the fatal fall.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding that the insured fell because he was impaired by alcohol and that his foot injury did not materially or significantly contribute to his fall or death.

The arbitrator also determined that the insured's two daughters qualified as dependants under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.