Joanne Bruno

The appellant, a religious teacher, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 10-year-old student.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to address inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's evidence, improperly using a prior consistent statement to bolster credibility, and conflating the absence of a motive to fabricate with positive proof of no motive.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately addressed the evidence, properly used the prior consistent statement as circumstantial evidence, and correctly addressed the motive to fabricate in response to the defence's cross-examination.

The applicant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm in 2015 and received a suspended sentence.

He later learned that the conviction constituted 'serious criminality' under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, creating a likely insurmountable barrier to his application for permanent resident status.

He brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal his conviction and sentence, arguing he was not informed of the immigration consequences at the time of his plea.

The court granted the extension, finding the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal had merit based on an uninformed plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, and the interests of justice favoured granting the extension.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The charge arose from the respondent's driving after she crashed into a condominium lobby window.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in law by conflating the actus reus and mens rea analyses and failing to conduct a proper risk assessment.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the circumstances and correctly concluded the driving was neither dangerous nor a marked departure from the standard of care.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 80mg.

She argued the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to recall a witness, in finding she was the driver, and in finding reasonable and probable grounds for her arrest.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's procedural discretion, factual findings on identification, or conclusion that objective grounds existed for the arrest.

The court also upheld the trial judge's alternative finding that the breath samples would be admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter even if a breach had occurred.

The appellant, an inmate serving a life sentence, was convicted of assaulting two jail guards.

At trial, he represented himself and brought a Charter application alleging severe mistreatment by correctional officers following the assault, including being left in handcuffs for hours, denied food and washroom access, and having his property destroyed.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter application, concluding he had no jurisdiction to grant a stay of proceedings for state misconduct that occurred after the events giving rise to the charges.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found this was an error of law, as courts have the authority to order a stay for post-offence state misconduct.

The convictions were quashed and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent after finding a reasonable doubt regarding the validity of the officer's demand, based on concerns about the officer's credibility regarding the smell of alcohol.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not conflate objective reasonableness with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, properly assessed the factors for reasonable suspicion, and provided sufficient reasons for his credibility findings.