Unnamed Crown expert

Gianluca Salvati was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking offences (cocaine, fentanyl, crack cocaine), possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of recognizance following a judge-alone trial.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his extensive criminal record, the significant quantity of drugs (including fentanyl with a street value up to $20,600), and his limited potential for rehabilitation.

Mitigating factors were minimal.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the defence sought five years.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for lockdowns and COVID-19 conditions.

The appellant, convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to ten years' incarceration, appealed both the conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal was based on claims of ineffective trial counsel, including failures in cross-examination, calling witnesses, eliciting expert opinion, and exploring photo tampering, as well as suggestions of improper discussions and conflict of interest.

The sentence appeal argued the trial judge erred in treating lack of remorse as an aggravating factor and in identifying primary sentencing objectives inconsistent with Gladue factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no basis for incompetence and noting the strong Crown case supported by forensic evidence.

It also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding that even if the trial judge erred regarding remorse, it had no impact given other serious aggravating factors, and that deterrence and denunciation were appropriate objectives.

The appellants were convicted of three counts of robbery with a firearm, three counts of forcible confinement, and one count of breaking and entering with intent to commit robbery.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence including text messages discussing obtaining a firearm, cell phone tower evidence placing the "Flyd" phone near the robbery location, fingerprint evidence linking Miles to the scene, and Miles' prior employment at the store.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sought leave to appeal sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals and the sentence appeals, finding that despite a hearsay error regarding the post-it note evidence linking Miles to the phone, the curative proviso applied as the evidence against Miles was overwhelming.

The appellant, Mark Broxterman, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood.

The appeal was based on three grounds: the trial judge erred in finding reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, misapprehended the evidence regarding the approved screening device (ASD) result, and rendered an unsafe verdict due to comments about writing two judgments.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's findings on reasonable grounds, the reliability of the ASD result based on expert evidence, and the appropriateness of the trial judge's decision-making process.

Two offenders were sentenced after a jury conviction for importing cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Each offender attempted to import nearly four kilograms of high‑purity cocaine concealed in luggage after travelling from Panama.

The court reviewed the established six‑to‑eight‑year sentencing range for first‑offender couriers importing multiple kilograms of cocaine, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Arguments that potential immigration consequences for one offender should justify a sentence below the range were rejected as speculative and inconsistent with proportionality principles.

Considering mitigating factors including lack of criminal records, the court imposed custodial sentences near the low end of the range.

The appellant appealed his sentence of nine years' imprisonment and his designation as a long-term offender following guilty pleas to aggravated assault and other offences arising from a domestic stabbing.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in designating the appellant a long-term offender because she failed to find that his pattern of aggressive behaviour was 'persistent' under the dangerous offender criteria, and failed to separately analyze whether there was a substantial risk to reoffend.

The long-term offender designation was set aside, but the nine-year sentence for the predicate offences was affirmed as fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment with 16 years of parole ineligibility.

He argued that his statements to police, which led to the discovery of his wife's cremated remains and forensic evidence in his home, were obtained in violation of his Charter rights under s. 10(b) and s. 7.

He also challenged the trial judge's use of his after-the-fact conduct to infer murderous intent and the assessment of expert bloodstain evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no Charter breaches and no errors in the trial judge's reasoning.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the parole ineligibility period was reduced to 13 years to accord with the parity principle for domestic murders.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of keeping gambling devices after the trial judge found insufficient evidence that the seized video machines were actually used for gambling.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal, ruling the trial judge erred in law by requiring proof of actual use.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the trial judge's refusal to infer the machines were gambling devices was a finding of fact based on evidentiary sufficiency, not an error of law, and therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to intervene.