Gillian Roberts

The appellants were convicted of two counts of first degree murder following a lengthy trial.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of three unsavoury witnesses, including a jailhouse informant.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence of post-trial recantations by two of these witnesses and argued that the trial judge made several errors, including failing to give an adequate Vetrovec warning and improperly admitting highly prejudicial evidence of a prior manslaughter conviction.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence of one witness's recantation and found that the trial judge erred in his Vetrovec warning and evidentiary rulings.

The cumulative effect of these errors warranted a new trial.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis of an erroneous jury charge.

The trial judge instructed the jury that they had to decide whom they believed between the accused and an accomplice, and determine if the accused's version was true or could reasonably be true.

The Court of Appeal held that this instruction constituted reversible error, despite a proper W.D. charge also being given.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the strangulation of his wife.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial but overwhelming, pointing to the appellant having killed his wife at home and then attempting to stage a robbery.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions, in admitting statements made to police after the appellant had asserted his right to counsel, and that the Crown made improper remarks in closing.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in admitting the police statements because their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value, the error was harmless given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

The curative proviso was applied, and the appeals from conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on self-defence, post-offence conduct, and admitting evidence of the deceased's peaceful disposition.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the jury instructions regarding sections 34(1), 34(2), and 37 of the Criminal Code.

The court also upheld the trial judge's treatment of post-offence conduct and the admission of evidence regarding the deceased's peaceful disposition, noting the defence had opened the door to it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a conditional sentence imposed for three counts of distribution of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography, arguing the sentencing judge misapprehended the offence circumstances, failed to grasp the nature of the offences, and gave insufficient weight to denunciation and general deterrence.

The court held the sentencing judge was aware of the relevant facts, was entitled to accept the uncontradicted psychiatric evidence that the respondent was not a pedophile, and properly relied on a closely analogous prior authority.

The court reaffirmed that, for certain offenders, a strict conditional sentence can adequately serve denunciation and general deterrence in child pornography cases.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that overturned the respondent's assault conviction.

The trial judge had convicted the respondent of domestic assault, accepting the complainant's evidence over the respondent's.

The summary conviction appeal judge allowed the respondent's appeal, finding the verdict unreasonable based on the testimony of police officers.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in law by failing to apply the correct standard of review for an unreasonable verdict and improperly substituting his own assessment of the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for abduction of a child under 14 contrary to s. 283 of the Criminal Code.

He argued the trial judge failed to adequately weigh the complainant's inconsistent evidence, reversed the burden of proof, and erred in applying the defence of consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to accept the complainant's explanation for inconsistencies, properly applied the burden of proof, and correctly concluded there was no air of reality to the defence of lack of intent to deprive.

The appellant appealed the portion of his sentence requiring him to make monthly payments of $150 towards a $5,400 restitution order as a condition of his conditional sentence and probation for fraud.

He argued the order was unduly harsh, violated parity, and he could not afford it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit, the restitution modest compared to the loss, and noting the appellant received substantially more money from the fraud than his co-accused.

The Court advised that if the appellant is currently unable to make payments, he should apply to vary the terms of his conditional sentence and probation.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference.

On appeal, he argued he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel failed to obtain or review the complainant's videotaped statement to police, proceeded to trial without a transcript of the preliminary inquiry, and based the defence on an inaccurate recollection of the complainant's evidence.

The Court held that trial counsel's conduct fell below a standard of reasonable competence and that the failure to cross-examine on prior inconsistent statements undermined the reliability of the verdict.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, while on probation in Ontario, travelled to Cuba and assaulted his companion.

He was charged in Ontario with breach of probation.

The trial judge convicted him, and the summary conviction appeal court upheld the conviction.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that probation orders bind the conduct of probationers both at home and abroad.

Applying the real and substantial link test, the Court found that Ontario had jurisdiction to try the offence because the probation order was made in Ontario and prosecuting the breach did not offend international comity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was initially found not criminally responsible (NCR) for property offences and possession of an imitation weapon based on psychiatric evidence.

At a subsequent Review Board hearing, it was revealed and undisputed that the appellant had feigned his mental disorder and did not actually suffer from one.

The proceedings before the Review Board were admitted as fresh evidence on appeal.

On the joint position of the parties, the Court of Appeal quashed the NCR finding and ordered a new trial on all counts.

The appellant, a former grade 4 teacher, appealed his convictions for historical sexual offences against two former students.

The allegations related to events that occurred 30 years prior.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made three errors: misapprehending the evidence by finding remarkable similarities between the complainants' testimonies while ignoring significant inconsistencies, failing to provide reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence, and improperly discounting the appellant's character evidence on the basis that sexual misconduct occurs in private, despite the allegations involving public conduct.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.