Joanna Rachel Baron

The appellant, convicted of manslaughter in the drowning death of his wife and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, applied for bail pending his conviction and sentence appeals.

The Crown conceded the appellant was not a flight risk or a danger to the public, but argued the appeals were frivolous and detention was necessary in the public interest.

The Court of Appeal found that the conviction appeal raised an arguable issue regarding the trial judge's response to a jury question, which introduced a new route to liability based on failing to provide the necessaries of life.

Concluding the appeal was not frivolous and the principle of reviewability outweighed enforceability, the Court granted release pending appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and indecent assault against the complainant, which occurred between 1979 and 1985, as well as his ten-month custodial sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of an uncharged incident, failing to give limiting instructions on prior consistent statements, and failing to instruct the jury on an alleged admission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the ten-month custodial sentence was fit and properly reflected the principles of denunciation and deterrence for historical sexual offences involving a breach of trust.

The respondent pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling-house and committing sexual assault under s. 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing judge initially imposed a SOIRA order but later rescinded it, concluding that s. 348(1)(b) was not a designated offence.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while s. 348(1)(b) is not listed as a designated offence, the respondent was sentenced under s. 348(1)(d), which is a designated offence.

Therefore, the SOIRA order was mandatory.