Grace Choi

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating that trial counsel failed to call evidence that could have explained inaccuracies in the appellant's police statement.

The trial judge had used the statement to undermine the appellant's credibility.

The Court found that the ineffective assistance occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

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

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider the defence of intoxication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the intoxication defence as the appellant's conduct was clearly purposeful.

The court also held that the trial judge properly found the appellant's actions amounted to threats of violence under s. 343(a) of the Criminal Code, as they caused a reasonable apprehension of physical harm.

The respondent pled guilty to seven counts of robbery, dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, and possession of a stolen vehicle, receiving a total concurrent sentence of four years.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the total sentence manifestly inadequate given the respondent's extensive record, the number of offences, and the fact that he was on parole.

The Court varied the sentences for dangerous driving and failing to stop to be consecutive to the robbery sentences, resulting in a total sentence of six years, and imposed a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his sentence of three and one-half years' imprisonment.

He argued that the trial judge's Vetrovec warning regarding an accomplice's testimony was deficient, that hearsay evidence was improperly admitted, and that the defence of intoxication should have been left to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the Vetrovec warning adequate, no prejudice from the hearsay evidence, and no air of reality to the intoxication defence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly applied the mandatory minimum for robbery with a firearm and the sentence was not excessive.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for sexual assault and argued, among other grounds, that the trial judge failed to properly investigate allegations that jurors had communicated with the officer-in-charge during trial.

The Court of Appeal held that both actual fairness and the appearance of fairness required a fuller inquiry into the allegation.

Because the witness was not permitted to explain an inconsistency and the officer should at least have been called to testify, the inquiry was incomplete and inconclusive.

The resulting appearance of unfairness required that the conviction be set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a speeding conviction based on a laser speed detection reading, arguing the Crown failed to prove the scientific reliability of the device absent expert evidence.

The court reviewed authorities concerning radar, speedometers, and newer laser technology, and held that although judicial notice of laser reliability had not yet been established, the Crown had adduced sufficient prima facie evidence of the particular unit's trustworthiness.

The combination of manufacturer-recommended testing on the date of the offence and an earlier comparison against an accurate radar unit by a qualified operator provided a sufficient circumstantial guarantee of reliability.

In the absence of contrary evidence, the conviction was upheld.

The appellant challenged a sexual offence conviction and sought leave to appeal a four-year penitentiary sentence.

The court held that extrinsic evidence to contradict the complainant about prior sexual conduct and alleged abuse was irrelevant to any live issue other than credibility and was therefore inadmissible under the collateral fact rule, apart from s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court also rejected arguments that the trial judge improperly compartmentalized the defence evidence, erred in relying on flight as consciousness of guilt, or mishandled credibility findings.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and although leave to appeal sentence was granted, the sentence appeal was also dismissed.