Frances Brennan

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine after police, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, arrested him while he was walking his dog.

A search incident to arrest at the police station revealed 7.6 grams of methamphetamine hidden inside the dog's harness.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure under sections 8 and 9.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest based on the compelling, credible, and corroborated informant tip.

The subsequent search of the dog's harness was deemed a valid search incident to lawful arrest.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the accused was found guilty of possession.

The respondent, a mortgage broker, was convicted of 25 counts of fraud over $5,000 for his participation in a large-scale Ponzi scheme.

The sentencing judge imposed a 23-month conditional sentence, characterizing the respondent as a victim of the scheme's mastermind.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge erred in principle as the jury's verdict implicitly rejected the respondent's claim that he thought the investments were legitimate.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale frauds involving breach of trust, the Court varied the sentence to four years' imprisonment.

The accused were charged with multiple offences including aggravated assault, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement against their roommate, a vulnerable individual with cognitive limitations.

The complainant suffered severe burn injuries from boiling water, which she initially claimed were self-inflicted but later testified were caused by the accused.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the sexual assault, confinement, and assault with weapons to be inconsistent and unreliable, resulting in acquittals on those charges.

However, relying on expert medical evidence that the extensive burn patterns were inconsistent with self-harm, the court found both accused guilty of aggravated assault.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault simplicitor under s. 266 of the Criminal Code and the resulting sentence of four months’ imprisonment and probation.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, improperly shifted the burden of proof, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework in evaluating defence evidence.

The appeal court held that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, did not misapprehend the evidence, and did not shift the burden of proof, and therefore dismissed the conviction appeal.

However, the sentencing judge committed an error in principle by improperly discounting rehabilitation and effectively treating the accused’s decision to proceed to trial as indicative of a lack of remorse.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the custodial term was reduced to 75 days to be served intermittently.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, criminal negligence, and possession of stolen property after crashing a stolen vehicle into a house.

The accused suffered severe, life-altering injuries requiring constant medical care.

The court considered Gladue factors, though finding a tenuous link, and the accused's dire medical situation as mitigating factors.

A global sentence of four years was imposed, reduced to 21 months net after credit for pre-trial custody, along with a 10-year driving prohibition and restitution.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code arising from sexual activity with a complainant who had been sleeping in another man’s bedroom after drinking alcohol.

The central issue was whether the complainant consented or whether the accused reasonably believed she was consenting, including the possibility that she mistakenly believed the accused was another individual.

The court applied the W.(D.) credibility framework and reviewed evidence from the complainant, the accused, an eyewitness, and forensic experts.

While the judge rejected much of the accused’s testimony and had concerns about aspects of the complainant’s evidence, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown therefore failed to establish the offence on the criminal standard.

The appellants were convicted of importing heroin and conspiring to import heroin after a controlled delivery of a package to a third party's apartment.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the evidence of the third party, who claimed the appellants orchestrated the importation.

The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge's jury charge was fatally flawed.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the charge failed to properly instruct the jury on assessing credibility, gave an inadequate Vetrovec warning, improperly exhorted minority jurors to reconsider their views, and failed to separately review the evidence against each appellant.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for incest and sexual assault, as well as his four-year concurrent sentences.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, shifted the burden of proof, and misapplied the W.D. test for credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons demonstrated a firm grasp of the evidence, properly applied the burden of proof, and accurately reflected the W.D. framework.

The sentence was also upheld as the finding of a pattern of assaults was reasonable.