Howard C. Rubel

The appellant appealed a forfeiture and prohibition order under s. 117.05(4) of the Criminal Code, arguing the trial judge erred in preferring hearsay evidence, reversing the onus of proof, impermissibly speculating, and misapprehending evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly given the deference owed to credibility findings.

The court found no errors in the trial judge's assessment of hearsay or the burden of proof, and that the inferences drawn regarding the appellant's anti-government views and potential for inciting others were reasonable given the evidence.

The appellant, a permanent resident, appealed his convictions for drug and credit card offences, arguing his guilty pleas were uninformed due to erroneous advice from trial counsel regarding immigration consequences.

A prior deportation order had been stayed but was lifted following these convictions.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence, found that trial counsel had misadvised the appellant, leading to an uninformed plea and subjective prejudice.

The court emphasized the duty of defence counsel to advise on collateral immigration consequences.

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

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant, a high school student, alleged that the accused, a first-year university student, sexually assaulted her in his residence room following a fraternity party.

The central issue was whether the sexual intercourse was consensual.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be incoherent, implausible, internally and externally inconsistent, and marked by a pattern of dishonesty.

The roommate's evidence was found to be credible and reliable, corroborating key aspects of the accused's account.

The court concluded that the complainant was apprehensive initially but was persuaded by the accused to engage in sexual activity, and after being reassured about the roommate's presence, she consented.

The court found insufficient evidence to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple counts of gross indecency involving seven child victims between 1980 and 1985.

The offences involved fondling of the victims' genitals in various contexts, including overnight stays, car rides, camping trips, and at a public swimming pool.

The accused had prior convictions for similar offences in 1990 and had undergone extensive psychiatric treatment and counselling over the intervening 22 years without reoffending.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less one day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day, finding that the unique circumstances of the case, including the accused's genuine remorse, low risk of reoffence, and successful rehabilitation over decades, warranted a departure from the typical custodial approach in child sexual abuse cases.