Ingrid Grant

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found drugs on his person and in his room while executing a search warrant.

On appeal, he argued the search warrant was invalid due to false information in the ITO and that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury regarding his failure to formally complain about alleged police brutality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no errors in upholding the warrant's validity or in her jury instructions.

The appellants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the Government of Canada and multiple counts of fraud over $5,000 relating to a scheme involving sham vehicle sales to exploit aboriginal tax exemptions and fraudulently claim GST refunds.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the trial judge provided insufficient reasons for the convictions.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge made conclusory findings of guilt without identifying the specific evidence establishing the appellants' participation in the illegitimate transactions or addressing the individual fraud counts.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of returning to Canada without the written consent of the Minister after being deported, contrary to s. 55(1) of the Immigration Act.

The trial judge placed an evidentiary burden on the appellant to adduce some evidence of permission to return.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the lack of written consent is an element of the offence, and the burden of proof lies entirely on the Crown.

The common law rule placing the burden on the accused for certain exceptions did not apply.

As the Crown failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, the appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that the trial judge erred in principle with respect to a joint submission.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting that the trial judge effectively applied the required test and correctly concluded that the proposed sentence, including three years of probation, would be insufficient to protect the public interest given the appellant's history of breaching probation orders on at least six other occasions.

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