J. Bruno

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from his conviction for assault with a weapon, entered following a guilty plea.

He argued his plea was uninformed regarding potential deportation consequences.

The court applied the test for extending time to appeal and found the applicant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time, failed to properly account for the delay, and his counsel did not act diligently.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant's claims regarding his lack of knowledge of immigration consequences lacked credibility and contradicted the record from the plea hearing.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by granting only a 20-minute adjournment after the Crown made late disclosure of a photograph and text messages during the complainant's cross-examination.

The Superior Court found that while the trial judge's adjournment decision was based on improper principles and a faulty factual foundation, the defence was not prejudiced.

The defence was able to fully cross-examine the complainant on the new evidence, meaning no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was dismissed under the curative proviso.

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault, threatening, mischief, and forcible entry on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.

She alleged her trial lawyer was unprepared, failed to provide proper advice, brought a meritless stay application, and sexually harassed her.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the appellant did not demonstrate the verdict would have been different, trial counsel's pervasive incompetence and sexual harassment of the appellant compromised the fairness of the trial, amounting to a constructive denial of the assistance of counsel.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to file an appeal of his conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued that he was unaware of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and that he was unfit to stand trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was aware of the immigration consequences, the delay was unexplained, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as he had been properly found fit to stand trial and a conditional discharge was disproportionate to the offence.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash an order committing them to stand trial for attempted murder and related offences concerning an unidentified passenger in a taxi.

They conceded there was sufficient evidence to commit them regarding the identified passenger, but argued there was no evidence they targeted the unidentified passenger.

The reviewing court found that circumstantial evidence, including a plural racial slur and continued shooting after the identified passenger was hit, provided the requisite scintilla of evidence to support the committal.

The application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder and attempted murder arising from a street stabbing that killed one victim and seriously injured another.

The court considered the factors under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code for determining the period of parole ineligibility, including the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and the surrounding circumstances.

Aggravating factors included the unprovoked knife attack on unarmed strangers in a public place and the offender’s role as the aggressor.

Mitigating factors included youth, remorse, family support, and the guilty plea.

The court imposed life imprisonment for second degree murder with a 12‑year parole ineligibility period and a concurrent 10‑year sentence for attempted murder.