Irwin A. Koziebrocki

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred by failing to give the usual 2-to-1 enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, which the trial Crown had not opposed.

The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeal in part, and reduced the sentence to time served.

The court also clarified that the restitution order did not provide for restitution to the James Estate and found no other errors.

The appellant appealed the conditions of his one-year conditional sentence and three-year probation order for assault causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the strict house arrest condition but found the restriction on family visits unreasonable, varying it to allow weekend visits with his daughter.

The court also varied the probation order to remove several conditions, including the requirement to abstain from alcohol.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant pleaded guilty to uttering a threat to cause bodily harm to his common-law partner and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and two years' probation.

At trial, the unrepresented appellant was sentenced without the trial judge allowing a female witness (either the complainant or her sister) to speak on his behalf.

The Court of Appeal found that fairness required the trial judge to hear from the witness, which may have assisted in assessing the seriousness of the offence.

The Court held that the 18-month sentence was out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and reduced the sentence to time served (over five and a half months), leaving the probation order in place.

The young person pleaded guilty to assault simpliciter after intervening in a confrontation between his friend and a homeowner.

The trial judge imposed a disposition of 45 days secure custody and 15 months' probation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to explore alternative dispositions short of custody for a first-time young offender.

The appeal was allowed, and the disposition was varied to time served, with the probation order remaining in place.

The appellant, a native Cree, appealed his convictions for sexual assault, uttering threats, assault, and extortion against two mentally challenged victims, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender and indeterminate sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to order production of a support worker's records, admitting bad character evidence, making unsupported factual findings, failing to consider Aboriginal sentencing principles under s. 718.2(e), and that s. 761 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings on production or evidence, and holding that the indeterminate sentence was overwhelmingly supported by the expert evidence despite the failure to expressly consider s. 718.2(e).

The appellant appealed his conviction for perjury.

At trial, the Crown called two eyewitnesses, and the trial judge instructed the jury that they could convict based on the totality of the evidence without needing to be satisfied that both witnesses correctly identified the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury in accordance with s. 133 of the Criminal Code, which requires corroboration of a single witness's evidence for a perjury conviction.

The failure to give this mandatory charge was a fatal error.

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

The young person appellant appealed his conviction for manslaughter arising from a deliberately set fire in a store during business hours.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to cross-examine its own witness on a prior statement, failed to appreciate the mens rea test, and failed to adequately explain how inconsistencies in the evidence were reconciled.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion regarding the cross-examination, concluding the evidence amply supported the mens rea finding, and holding that the trial judge's reasons sufficiently identified the evidence relied upon to support the verdict.