Jennifer Mannen

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that the trial judge erred in principle by rejecting a joint submission on sentence.

The trial judge had added an additional year of driving prohibition and community service, stating the joint submission was 'getting close' to being contrary to the public interest.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge applied the incorrect legal test and failed to properly consider the factors underlying the joint submission, including forfeited money, triable issues, and full restitution.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to reflect the joint submission of 35 days custody (after pre-trial credit) and a one-year driving prohibition.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial judge failed to give adequate weight to his guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and noting that the trial judge's reasons were exemplary and the sentence was well within the range.

The trial judge had appropriately considered the guilty plea and the appellant's sincere remorse.

The accused was charged with driving over 80 and failed to appear for her trial date.

The trial judge arraigned her in absentia and entered a not guilty plea, relying on a filed designation of counsel.

The summary conviction appeal court set aside the conviction, finding a violation of the accused's right to be present.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the designation of counsel made the accused legally present.

Furthermore, even if her physical presence was required, the curative proviso applied because the error was a procedural irregularity that caused no prejudice.

The appellant appealed his sentence for a serious home invasion, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to give enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the amount of pre-sentence custody was part of the joint submission and that the sentence, which was at the very low end of the range, appropriately reflected one-for-one credit alongside other mitigating factors.

The appellant appealed the imposition of an $8,000 fine, arguing it was excessive and that the trial judge failed to make sufficient inquiry into his ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge erred in this regard, though it affirmed that a fine reflecting the seriousness of the offence was appropriate.

The appeal was allowed and the fine was reduced to $6,000, with one year to pay.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision that upheld his conviction.

The sole ground of appeal was that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to his evidence compared to the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the appellant failed to meet the test for leave and that the argument had little merit.

The applicant was convicted of driving with a suspended licence at an ex parte trial after failing to appear on an adjourned trial date.

His application for an extension of time to appeal was denied by the Ontario Court of Justice.

He sought leave to appeal that denial to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, as that section only permits appeals from judgments made pursuant to s. 116, not s. 85.

In any event, the appeal lacked merit because the defendant bore the responsibility to ascertain his adjourned trial date.