Feldman

The appellant, a real estate agent, was convicted of fraud in relation to three real estate transactions.

She appealed her convictions on the sole ground that the trial judge impermissibly intervened during her cross-examination, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's interventions were primarily questions seeking clarification of confusing evidence and did not compromise the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The police followed the respondent off a public highway and onto his private driveway to conduct a random sobriety check, where they observed signs of impairment and arrested him for impaired driving.

The trial judge convicted the respondent, but the summary conviction appeal judge overturned the conviction, finding the stop violated s. 9 of the Charter and excluding the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that neither s. 48(1) of the Highway Traffic Act nor the common law ancillary powers doctrine authorized police to conduct a random, groundless sobriety stop on private property.

The Court upheld the exclusion of evidence, concluding that the serious Charter breach outweighed the public interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought its costs of the original application on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's bad faith dealing.

The Court of Appeal declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The Court awarded the appellant partial indemnity costs fixed at $100,000.

The appellant appealed a trial decision granting joint custody but allowing the respondent mother to relocate with their two children to Washington State and giving her final decision-making authority.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by relying on the respondent's stated intention to move with or without the children, failing to maximize contact, and rejecting the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation against relocation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, avoided the 'double bind' trap, and made an order in the children's best interests.

The access schedule was slightly amended for 2021 due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and acquitted of transmitting an intimate image without consent after the trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal on the latter charge.

The trial judge ruled that a FaceTime call was not a 'visual recording' under s. 162.1 of the Criminal Code because it lacked the capability for reproduction.

The Crown appealed the acquittal, and the accused appealed the conviction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the ordinary meaning of 'visual recording' includes a FaceTime call and does not require the image to be capable of reproduction.

The accused's appeal against conviction was dismissed, as the trial judge made no reversible errors in her jury instructions on consent or in handling objections to the Crown's closing address.

A new trial was ordered on the intimate image charge.