Janet M. Simmons

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring a road passing through the respondents' property to be an access road under the Road Access Act, but restricting its use and denying costs.

The respondents cross-appealed the declaration and the denial of their request to close the road.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the road was an access road but found no statutory basis for restricting its use to specific parties or purposes.

The Court also found the trial judge erred by failing to determine whether parties entitled to notice had a legal right to use the road before denying the closure request under s. 3(1)(b).

The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part, and a new trial was ordered regarding the road closure and stayed damage claims.

The appellant appealed his sentence of four years and four days for sexual touching and three counts of breach of recognizance.

The offences involved touching a young boy over his clothes, committed while the appellant was subject to an order prohibiting him from being alone with children.

The trial judge had considered a medical report indicating a likelihood of future abuse.

The Court of Appeal found that while a significant sentence was necessary for public protection, the total sentence was excessive given the low gravity of the specific offence and the fact that the medical report was not filed as an exhibit.

The court granted leave to appeal and reduced the sentence for sexual touching from three years to two years.

The Crown appealed the imposition of a 20-month conditional sentence for domestic violence offences and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by underestimating the gravity of the offences and that a penitentiary sentence was clearly warranted.

However, because the respondent had already served almost 12 months of house arrest and completed a rehabilitation program, the Court declined to reincarcerate him and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed her conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence to support the trial judge's finding of impairment, including testimony from the appellant's son and a police officer regarding her intoxication, disorientation, and odour of alcohol.

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

The appellant pleaded guilty to break, enter and theft, and attempted break and enter, committed while on parole.

He was sentenced to five years and three years concurrent imprisonment.

He appealed the sentences, arguing they were beyond the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentences were not unfit given the appellant's significant criminal record for similar offences, previous penitentiary sentences, and the fact that he broke into an occupied residential dwelling.

The appellants were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

At the preliminary inquiry, the judge discharged the appellants.

On an application for certiorari, the reviewing judge quashed the discharges and committed the appellants for trial, finding the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by weighing evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of jurisdictional error but allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the committal for trial and remitting the matter to the preliminary inquiry judge for further consideration.

The appellant appealed his sentence for breaching a recognizance under s. 810 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by concluding the conduct was in the category of the most serious possible breaches.

While the offender's criminal history must be considered, not every breach mandates the maximum sentence.

The court granted leave to appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment (12 months plus 6 months' time served) along with the original probation period.

The appellant appealed his sentence for robbery, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting a joint submission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the test for rejecting a joint submission, noting the appellant's lengthy criminal record, the seriousness of the offence, and the fact that counsel were unaware of the full extent of the record when making the joint submission.

The appellant appealed a 3-year sentence imposed for sexual offences, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the totality principle given his existing nine-year sentence for other sexual offences from the same time frame.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the additional three-year sentence infringed the totality principle.

Leave to appeal was granted, and the sentence was reduced to an additional one year of imprisonment to be served consecutively to the sentence the appellant was already serving.

The appellant was convicted of participating in a sophisticated marijuana growing operation and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

She appealed both the conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, the verdict was unreasonable, and the trial judge erred in principle by presuming a conditional sentence was unavailable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably inferred her involvement from circumstantial evidence, including her access to the house and items found in her car.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered a conditional sentence but concluded denunciation and deterrence mandated a custodial sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assaulting his mother and breaching probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's evidence.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the total sentence exceeded what was appropriate for simple assault and breach of probation.

As the appellant had already served the custodial portion, the Court reduced the term of probation from 24 months to 12 months.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

At trial, the judge placed considerable emphasis on the complainant's emotional display during testimony, which related to an alleged threat against his mother.

However, the trial judge had previously precluded evidence on this issue, deeming it unnecessary.

The Court of Appeal held that relying on this emotional display after precluding evidence on the issue was unfair and deprived the appellant of the opportunity to make full answer and defence.

The conviction appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The young person pleaded guilty to first degree murder and using a firearm during the commission of an indictable offence.

He was sentenced to an intensive rehabilitative custody sentence (IRCS) based on a joint submission, receiving only three months credit for 17.5 months of pre-sentence custody.

On appeal, he argued the youth court judge erred in deferring the weapons sentence and failing to give full credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the judge intended the custodial portions to be served continuously and had discretion to reduce pre-sentence credit below a one-to-one ratio in exceptional cases involving joint submissions.

The appellant appealed his convictions on four counts of fraud under $5,000 arising from his computer business, where he accepted cash from customers for computer systems that were never delivered.

He argued the findings of guilt were unreasonable because there was no evidence of the requisite mens rea for fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence capable of supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant took the money knowing he could not or would not produce the goods.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decision and determined that it required further evidence to properly decide the sentence appeal.

Pursuant to s. 687(1) of the Criminal Code and R. v. Gladue, the court ordered the preparation of a further pre-sentence report addressing the systemic and background factors relevant to the Aboriginal offender.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for gross indecency and sexual touching involving his stepson, seeking to strike his guilty pleas.

He argued that his trial counsel was incompetent for failing to identify a s. 10(b) Charter breach and for pressuring him to plead guilty, and that his pleas were involuntary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's conduct did not fall below the reasonableness standard and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The court also upheld the global sentence of 21 months' imprisonment and three years' probation as fit.

The respondent pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The sentencing judge rejected a joint submission for a conditional sentence and imposed a $5,000 fine.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the fine manifestly unfit and holding that the sentencing judge misunderstood the principles of conditional sentencing and failed to justify departing from the joint submission.

The sentence was varied to add an 18-month conditional sentence to the fine.

The appellant appealed a two-year sentence imposed following guilty pleas to drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The sentence was based on a joint submission.

The appellant sought a one-day reduction in his sentence to avoid the prohibition under s. 64 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act against appealing a deportation order for permanent residents sentenced to at least two years.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, noting that the immigration consequences were not considered at sentencing and that a one-day reduction would not detract from the fitness of the sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment plus 12 months' probation.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and imposed 21 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to explain how the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, as required by Cerasuolo.

The Court allowed the appeal and substituted the jointly proposed sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, which was based on the eyewitness identification of a police officer who identified him from a single photograph.

The Court of Appeal held that while the verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge erred by focusing solely on the officer's credibility without addressing the inherent dangers of eyewitness identification or expressly considering whether the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to the reliability of the identification.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.