James V. Palangio

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that overturned the accused's conviction for failing to provide a suitable breath sample.

The appeal court judge had found that the trial judge failed to appreciate evidence regarding lack of motive and consciousness of innocence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the appeal court judge misapplied the legal test for appellate review and effectively retried the case.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge gave thorough reasons for finding the requisite mens rea and was not required to refer to every piece of evidence, particularly where the evidence in question had marginal relevance to the issue of intent.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of three accused charged with driving while disqualified.

The accused had signed standard pre-printed prohibition orders that failed to set out the full penal consequences of driving while disqualified, as required by s. 260(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued that the presumption of regularity should apply to cure the defective forms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the presumption of regularity did not apply because the written forms were explicitly deficient and there was no reason to presume the court clerk went beyond the written terms when explaining the orders.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his appeal from a conviction for careless driving.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's order, and remitted the careless driving appeal to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court to be heard with the 'no clear view' appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the police officer lacked adequate grounds to make a breath demand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the totality of the information relied on by the officer provided adequate grounds for the demand.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of refusing to provide a suitable breath sample.

The Crown appealed to the summary conviction appeal court, which quashed the acquittal and entered a conviction.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge erred in law by considering the officer's knowledge of the alert device's workings as relevant to whether the appellant intentionally refused to provide a sample.

However, the Court held that the summary conviction appeal court judge erred by entering a conviction, as the trial judge had not made all the necessary findings of fact.

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

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm following a motor vehicle collision.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing to give a special jury instruction on the frailties of eyewitness confidence, and that his Charter rights were violated during the seizure of blood and breath samples.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instruction was unnecessary and the evidence was lawfully obtained.

The appellant's sentence appeal seeking a conditional sentence or reduced term from his 21-month imprisonment was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his sentence.

He argued the conviction was unreasonable, the jury charge on self-defence was inadequate, and challenged his involvement in trafficking marijuana.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding evidence of violence and theft supported the robbery conviction, the jury charge was clear, and his presence to assist in trafficking evidenced his guilt as an aider or abettor.

The court found no error in principle in the sentence.

With consent, a stay on a conviction for possession of a firearm while prohibited was vacated, a conviction entered, and a concurrent six-month sentence imposed.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death after his vehicle went off the road, killing his passenger.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting the Crown accident reconstructionist's opinion on speed and impairment, and in failing to properly instruct the jury regarding 'bolus drinking'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the expert was properly qualified to give the impugned opinions and the jury was entitled to infer from the evidence and common sense that the appellant had not engaged in bolus drinking.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing death, driving over 80, and dangerous driving causing death, and sentenced to four years and ten months' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in assessing evidence of bolus drinking and improperly drew an adverse inference from his failure to testify.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the trial judge properly rejected the bolus drinking evidence and correctly applied the burden of proof, though it conditionally stayed the over 80 conviction based on a Crown concession.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certiorari application to quash his committal for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant and his co-accused were engaged in a joint venture to cultivate and traffic in marijuana and to possess firearms in furtherance of that enterprise, justifying the committal for trial.

The accused, charged with defrauding her employer, brought a motion for the production of financial records from third parties.

The motion was dismissed as a fishing expedition.

The trial judge ordered the Crown to pay half of the substantial costs incurred by the third parties in defending the motion, as the accused was judgment proof.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there is no statutory or inherent jurisdiction to award costs against the Crown in the trial of an indictable offence absent Crown misconduct or a serious interference with the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two grounds: that the trial judge erred in dismissing a mistrial motion after jurors potentially heard inadmissible portions of a tape, and that the jury selection process was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was best positioned to assess prejudice and cure it with instructions, and that the jury selection process complied with the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the complainant was incapable of consenting due to her advanced state of intoxication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's conclusion was amply supported by the evidence.

The appeal from sentence was dismissed as abandoned.

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision upholding the respondent's acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The trial judge had excluded the breath readings under s. 8 of the Charter, finding the police officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds because the approved screening device had not been calibrated within departmental guidelines.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the wrong test by effectively requiring the Crown to prove the device was in good working order rather than assessing whether the officer had reasonable grounds on an objective basis.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding he intended to mislead the court at his bail hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding that the appellant presented evidence he knew was dishonest to advance his position was supported by the evidence, and that the evidence did not need to be on a material point.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years less a day, three years' probation, and a 12-year driving prohibition for criminal negligence causing death and impaired driving causing death.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to seriously consider a conditional sentence and appealed the length of the driving prohibition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in prioritizing general deterrence through incarceration and that deference was owed to the driving prohibition imposed.

The appellant, a professional bus driver, appealed his conviction for dangerous driving after he drove a bus too far to the right and struck a curb.

He argued that the trial judge erred in rejecting his defence of steering failure and that the reasons for judgment were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the steering was functional prior to impact and that the appellant's delayed reaction constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.