Holly Loubert

The applicant applied to reopen his appeals, which were previously dismissed as abandoned.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the interests of justice did not warrant the relief.

The court noted the proposed appeals lacked merit, as the trial judge properly applied section 16 of the Criminal Code in finding the applicant did not appreciate the nature and quality of his acts.

Furthermore, the applicant had been fully informed of the implications of abandoning his appeals, and his change of heart was consistent with his history of ambivalence.

The Crown appealed an 18-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent, who pleaded guilty to administering a noxious chemical and criminal harassment against a former intimate partner and co-worker.

The respondent repeatedly sprayed a corrosive chemical on the victim's workstation, causing severe burns and blistering over several years.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in concluding the conduct was not a 'serious personal injury offence' under s. 752 of the Criminal Code, which rendered a conditional sentence unavailable.

The Court also found the original sentence demonstrably unfit given the significant breach of trust and extensive planning, varying the sentence to two years less a day of imprisonment.

The appellant and a co-accused pleaded guilty to a scheme to defraud an estate using forged documents in Small Claims Court.

The appellant received an 18-month conditional sentence and 12 months' probation, while the co-accused received a 90-day conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and noting the appellant's lengthy criminal record for similar offences justified the disparity.

The conviction appeal was abandoned.

The appellant appealed her conditional sentence and conviction.

The conviction appeal was abandoned and dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding that the conditional sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The appellant appealed from a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual offences, including rape.

He argued that the trial judge misused discreditable conduct evidence, erred in a severance ruling, and that the Crown's cross-examination was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's careful reasons and ample reason to disbelieve the appellant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the serious nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the appellant's prior record for sexual assault.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing phone records evidence and the credibility of a complainant regarding an assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions on the unreliability of the phone records and the credibility of the complainant were open to her and warranted no interference.

The appellants, husband and wife, were convicted of second degree murder in the death of their seven-year-old son, who died following months of severe physical abuse.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding the cause of death and challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on aiding and abetting, out-of-court statements, and propensity reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the fresh evidence did not meet the required cogency threshold to affect the verdict, particularly given the tactical decision not to call such evidence at trial.

The Court also found no reversible errors in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and upheld the 18-year parole ineligibility period for the stepmother.

The respondents, a father and son, were convicted of arson and fraud after intentionally causing an explosion and fire at their family business to defraud an insurance company of $200,000.

The trial judge imposed conditional sentences of two years less a day.

The Crown appealed the sentences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that conditional sentences are generally inappropriate for serious arson offences, especially given the planning, use of accelerants, and danger posed to adjoining occupants and firefighters.

The court substituted sentences of 12 months in custody.

The appellants appealed their convictions for three arson-related offences.

They argued they lacked a sufficient evidentiary record and that their trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellants had consented to their appellate counsel's removal and were responsible for preparing the appeal, and found no evidence to support the ineffective assistance claim.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for offences involving a breach of trust against a vulnerable young person.

He argued the trial judge treated the evidence unevenly and failed to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility and that MSN chat messages were highly inculpatory.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court upholding the 22-month sentence for an increasingly intrusive breach of trust by a step-father over an extended period.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his sentence of 4.5 years in custody followed by two years of probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the defence position, Crown submissions, the W.D. charge, or limiting instructions on discreditable conduct.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The Crown conceded the probation order was illegal and that the trial judge misapprehended the length of the appellant's prior sentences.

The Court set aside the probation order and reduced the custodial sentence to 3 years less 4 months for time served.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual offences against two complainants.

He argued the trial judge erred in his jury charge regarding the reliability of the complainants' evidence and the standard of evaluation, and that the Crown made improper comments on reasonable doubt during closing submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury charge was adequate and the Crown's improper comments were cured by the trial judge's instructions.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the prolonged regime of sexual abuse by a parent figure justified the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and firearms offences, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the robbery conviction, finding the verdict was not unreasonable.

However, the Court found the trial judge failed to establish to the criminal standard that the weapon used was a firearm.

Consequently, the firearms convictions were set aside and substituted with convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm.

The appellant's sentence was reduced from five-and-a-half years to five years.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against his live-in girlfriend's two daughters.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in permitting the jury to use the testimony of each complainant as similar fact evidence and in failing to provide limiting instructions on its use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence, as the similarities were highly probative and the issue of collusion was properly handled.

The Court also held that the requested limiting instructions were unnecessary and could have confused the jury or prejudiced the appellant.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences related to a credit card fraud and manufacturing operation found in their home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge reasonably inferred knowledge and participation from the presence of false credit cards and manufacturing equipment.

The sentence appeal for the first appellant was dismissed, including a restitution order.

However, the sentence appeal for the second appellant was allowed in part to set aside the restitution order against her, as there was no evidence of her ability to pay.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the principles in R. v. W.D. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons did not reveal any such failure and were based on a review of the entirety of the evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his prior misconduct.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to provide a clear ruling on the basis for admitting the evidence and the use made of it.

The court noted it was unclear whether the evidence was used as similar fact evidence or for credibility.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.