Ioana Dragalin-Reeves

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and that she misapprehended evidence regarding the opportunity to commit the offence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons sufficient, noting that credibility assessments are complex and that the judge clearly rejected the defence's evidence after a full review of the complainant's testimony.

The court reiterated that incomplete transcripts do not automatically lead to a new trial unless there is a serious possibility of error or deprivation of appeal grounds.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Lorne Clement, appealed his sexual assault conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The grounds included counsel's failure to ensure the appellant reviewed his police statement, failure to review potentially exculpatory evidence from a witness (R.D.), and failure to order witness statement transcripts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even assuming factual shortcomings in counsel's performance, the appellant failed to establish prejudice.

The court reasoned that the appellant's own admissions to police regarding intoxication were pivotal to the trial judge's rejection of his testimony, and the witness's evidence was not clearly exculpatory.

This is an appeal from convictions for threatening, assault, and sexual assault.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility findings regarding peripheral Crown witnesses and alleged misapprehension of his own evidence concerning the sexual assault incident.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge applied the correct legal principles, including those from R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. C.L.Y., and reasonably assessed witness credibility.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the appellant's evidence was improbable and lacked credibility.

The appellant appealed convictions for various drug-related offences, challenging the trial judge's findings on reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and the legality of a search incident to arrest under section 8 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, based on confidential informant information and the discovery of drugs in the appellant's car.

The court also upheld the search of a locked container within the vehicle as a lawful search incident to arrest, despite the appellant's assertion of privacy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The court determined the total delay was 19 months and 19 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court found the delay was primarily attributable to the Crown's failure to provide timely and complete disclosure, despite diligent efforts by the defence.

Even if the delay fell below the ceiling, the court found it unreasonable given the defence's proactive steps and the Crown's apathy.

The application was granted, and the charges were stayed.