Geoffrey Erik Haskell

The self-represented appellant was convicted of fentanyl trafficking, conspiracy, and uttering forged documents.

He appealed on the basis that he was denied access to the Crown's digital disclosure while incarcerated during the trial.

The Crown conceded the trial was unfair and the appeal should be allowed, but argued for a new trial.

The appellant sought acquittals, arguing he had already served part of his sentence and the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could convict.

The applicants, Darko and Daniel Stojanovski, sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of attempted murder and discharging a firearm, and sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court found the appeals were not frivolous but dismissed the applications, concluding that detention was necessary in the public interest due to the serious nature of the offences, the unacceptably weak release plan, and the weak grounds of appeal, which outweighed the applicants' arguments regarding COVID-19 risks in detention.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence following guilty pleas to sexual interference, child luring, and making child pornography.

He argued the sentencing judge erred in finding the predicate offence was a serious personal injury offence and in considering his history of domestic violence as part of a repetitive pattern of behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sexual abuse of a child involved the use of violence and inflicted severe psychological damage.

The court also admitted fresh evidence of the appellant's rehabilitative progress but concluded it did not render the indeterminate sentence unreasonable given his high risk of reoffending.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The parties agreed that the appeal should be allowed to correct the credit given for pre-trial custody.

The appellant had served eight months pre-trial, and the parties agreed the credit should have been 12 months at a 1:5.1 ratio.

With the correct allocation for pre-trial custody, the sentence imposed (suspended sentence with 12 months probation) remained unchanged, as did the other ancillary orders.

The appeal was allowed to reflect the proper credit for time served.

The appellant appealed his conviction on multiple counts of domestic violence offences and his dangerous offender designation with an indeterminate sentence.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant of two counts of aggravated assault, one count each of sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault, assault with a weapon, uttering a death threat, and breach of a probation order, while acquitting him on eight other counts.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's use of cross-count similar fact evidence and the dangerous offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's approach to the cross-count evidence and confirming that the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met.

The appellant appealed his conviction for numerous firearms offences arising from an incident in downtown Toronto where he attempted to discard a loaded handgun.

He challenged the conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred in failing to grant a stay of proceedings based on the failure of police to preserve CCTV footage, contrary to section 7 of the Charter.

The trial judge applied the framework from established case law and found no breach of section 7.

The appellant received a remedy through a jury instruction regarding the failure to preserve evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The sentence appeal was rendered moot as the appellant had already served his sentence, and leave to appeal sentence was refused.